Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Genetic Processes

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I wish to present a petition to the House of Commons which has been signed and organised by the Rev. John Leonard, vicar of Kingskerswell. It has been signed by him and by about 200 of his parishioners in the parishes of Coffinswell and Kingskerswell.
The petition draws the attention of the House to three abuses of genetic processes: first, the use of eggs from aborted foetuses to induce pregnancy; secondly, the implanting of donated eggs in post-menopausal women; and thirdly, the choosing of donated eggs to determine the colour and sex of a child.
The petitioners who have signed the petition regard these practices as abhorrent—a view which I entirely share—and ask the House to take two courses of action. They ask first that steps be taken to discourage the process; and secondly, if that discouragement does not work, they call on this honourable House to enact suitable legislation.
The petition ends in the usual way.

To lie upon the Table.

Disabled Facilities Grants (Wales)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am most grateful for the opportunity today to bring to the Minister's attention one aspect of the problems associated with disabled people in Wales—the provision of disabled facilities grants.
My constituent Mrs. Rogers—I have deliberately altered the name—is 72 years old. She weighs about eight stone; she has always been a very active and busy lady. Her husband is also in his early 70s. He was admitted to hospital last year and had both his legs amputated at the knee. He weighs about 15 stone.
Mr. Rogers was discharged from hospital to his home, a comfortable three-bedroomed, semi-detached house. He was only too pleased to be going home, and his wife could not get him home soon enough—except that, when the ambulanceman left, the reality of community care came home to the family
Mr. Rogers cannot get up or down stairs, he cannot sit himself up in bed, or get on a bedpan or use a commode. He cannot get in and out of bed, or in and out of a wheelchair, or a bath or a shower. He cannot wash his hair. He cannot be taken in or out of the house in a wheelchair.
Mr. Rogers is a game individual. His wife is practical and a tower of strength, but she cannot lift him or safely steady him. It is just not physically possible for an eight-stone elderly lady to manhandle a disabled man almost twice her weight. He needs gadgets, such as pulleys and handrails, so that he can get up and down, and in and out of bed, and into or out of a wheelchair. He needs adaptations: perhaps not an extension to the house, but certainly a stair lift, wider doorways and ramps, instead of steep steps, so that he can move around his home and not be a prisoner in one room.
Mr. Rogers needs a different shower, unlike the one he has over the bath, so that, as he puts it, he can keep himself clean and enjoy some privacy and dignity.
Mr. and Mrs. Rogers need a disabled facilities grant for these adaptations if they are to cope. They have been told that they will have to wait three years for such a grant. They are just one of many couples who have approached me for help. Patients are being discharged from hospital to schemes of care in the community. They move from the boundaries of health care into social care. The keys to adequate and successful care for the disabled in the community are adaptations to their homes.
There are 300,000 carers in Wales. We rely on them as the backbone of care in the community. They look to us in the House to ensure that the basic facilities that will make their task possible will be available to them.
In Wales, according to the 1986 Welsh house condition survey, while only one in four owner-occupied households are pensioners, two out of every five pensioner households live in homes needing more than £3,000-worth of repairs. People aged over 75 are more likely to live in poor housing. Almost two thirds of households eligible and entitled to grant aid are elderly people.
As people get older, their need for a disabled facilities grant becomes more likely. With the introduction of care in the community, more pensioners will need grant help if they are to stay in suitable housing where they can be warm, safe and comfortable. The ability to meet that need


at an average cost, based on Swansea city's experience, of £3,000 in disabled facilities grant per household is vital to the success of community care.
I have raised the issue during Welsh Questions on a number of occasions and have drawn both the Secretary of State's and the Minister's attention to the fact that, in my view, care in the community cannot work unless disabled facilities grants are available and adaptations are carried out before a patient is discharged home from hospital.
The Secretary of State's response resembled that of a petty schoolboy in the playground. "Don't blame me, blame the Labour councils," he told me, "Let the councils put their money where the hon. Member's mouth is."
If that really is the response of the right hon. Gentleman to a legitimate question about the funding of grants for the disabled and frail elderly, he should get himself back to basic courtesies, never mind constructing glib slogans. It is neither appropriate nor seemly to make such comments and push the frail elderly and disabled into that argument to avoid responsibility for implementing his own Government's policies.
The Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate informed my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 10 January that £27.9 million is available to local authorities for disabled facilities grants in the financial year 1994–95. That is somewhat less than the Secretary of State led me to believe. He told me in a parliamentary answer on January 17 this year that local authorities had had £26 million in 1992–93, and that he was increasing that figure this year by £6.6 million. So in seven days the disabled in Wales seem to have lost £4.7 million.
Since 1 April 1992, however, the allocation of moneys for disabled facilities grants is a notional inclusion into the basic credit allowance of local councils. It has therefore become easy for any Minister in Wales to claim that there has been no cut by central Government, even though local councils are having to make up progressive year-on-year reductions in funding for all housing needs.
It is unfortunate that, because of the switch to care in the community, the increased demand for disabled facilities grants has coincided with the Government ceasing to make a distinct and separate allocation of disabled facilities grant moneys, shifting such grants into the basic credit allocation and away from the supplementary credit allowance. That means that grants for the disabled now have to compete with other demands on the council's capital programme.
In Swansea, for instance, the city's ability to switch money to disabled grants is limited by the city's commitment to long-standing projects such as the PRC housing refurbishment programme. Disabled facilities grants now have to compete with other grants for council house repairs and improvements. Those competing demands jostle for priority within a reduced budget.
A recent survey of local authorities in Wales undertaken by Swansea city council shows that the proportion of basic credit allocation used for disabled facilities grant purposes varies from a mere 7 per cent. to an enormous 83 per cent. The question seems to be by how much one can rob Peter to pay Paul. Of the councils that took part in the survey, 62 per cent. experienced a shortfall of finance for disabled facilities grants, with increases required ranging from 10 per cent. to 150 per cent. The average increase in capital required to deal with demand was 33 per cent.
The experience of Swansea city council is that the number of applications for grant has increased. In April 1991, 204 applications were approved, out of a total of 555 applications. In 1992, 491 applications were approved, from 706 original applications. From April 1993 to June 1993, when disabled facilities grants were stopped for lack of funds, 66 applications were approved, from 162 original applications. The city now has 250 applications awaiting approval, and 470 inquiries on hold. To meet that need, the city will need an extra £2 million.
It has been a source of satisfaction that in Swansea there has not been an excessive wait for disabled facilities grant.—until this year, when it became apparent that the amount the city had allocated for disabled facilities grant, along the lines the Government had suggested would be the city's needs, no longer met increased need for adaptations. There is now a backlog of 263 full applications awaiting approval. Acceptance of new applications has been frozen. Approximately £500,000 of next year's disabled facilities grant allocation has been spent, and the system is breaking down.
It is not just that the vulnerable and their carers are having to cope with special problems and difficulties in totally unsatisfactory circumstances, as in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Rogers; it is grossly inefficient that a system of care which depends on three agencies—the health authority, county social services and the district councils grant system—should be jeopardised in this way.
Hospitals do not want elderly patients commandeering scarce acute long-term beds, but the health authority is not prepared to pay for nursing care in private nursing homes.
The Under-Secretary and I served together on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that in 1992 examined community care in Wales, especially in respect of the needs of the elderly. One aspect we explored was the discharge of patients from hospital. I am extremely perturbed that, as far as I know, there remains in force a Welsh Office circular dated 5 January 1990, which was included in the annexe of the fourth report of that Committee, published on 11 March 1992. It states:
No NHS patient should be placed in a private nursing home against his/her wishes if it means that he/she or a relative will be personally responsible for the home's charges.
Among the witnesses from county council social services departments who appeared before the Committee on 5 February 1992 was Mr. Byron Williams, assistant director of community care for Gwynedd. At column 159 of the minutes, I suggested that there was a hidden conspiracy between consultant geriatricians and hospital social workers in discharging elderly people from hospital into private nursing homes, without explaining the meaning of the relevant paragraph in the Welsh Office circular. Mr. Williams replied:
I quite agree with the sentiments you are expressing. What we have to look at is the pressures on those people in those circumstances, and they are quite appalling. Sometimes it is a kind of social conspiracy, almost, involving a number of people, quite unconsciously, to achieve certain tidy outcomes, which is residential nursing home care.
It concerns me that the Welsh Office circular remains in force and that patients are still discharged into private nursing homes without a proper explanation of the financial implications. I am certain that still goes on, but it is complicated by the fact that the patients return home first before entering a private nursing home, which avoids the provisions of the Welsh Office circular.
Whatever happens, when the elderly patient is discharged home, the social services department eventually makes an assessment of need, based on the requirement for adaptations. My experience is that social workers take no account of the length of time that work will take to complete. In any case, is it efficient to pay for a nursing home place for any length of time when a relatively small amount of money spent on aids and adaptations can often enable a patient to live happily, competently and decently at home, with ancillary care support services?
Disabled facilities grants are extremely cost-effective if they allow the individual to remain in his own home, if that is where he wants to be, compared with admission to a nursing home at a cost of up to £16,000 a year. If community care is to be a meaningful alternative, it must be paid for in terms of not only social workers, health visitors, district nurses arid care assistants but adapting homes where necessary—and quickly, so that the health, morale and well-being of patients and their carers are not worn down by the strain of barely coping.
I hope that the Minister will re-examine that issue and amend the Welsh Office circular, so that the financial burden of means testing is clearly explained to patients. They are given a so-called choice, but in reality there is no choice in terms of being discharged from hospital into a nursing home. I hope that he will also consider the needs of patients receiving care in the community and will increase funding of disabled facilities grants.
That allocation should be ring-fenced and specific, as part of community care funding. Local councils need to be on top of the demand for care, so that they may take their crucial place in the community care chain. For patients such as Mr. Rogers, returning home should be a continuum of suitable care, not a sentence of house arrest.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider that important issue. The fundamental error in April 1992 was to transfer the only mandatory housing grant—the disabled facilities grant—out of the supplementary credit allowance and into the basic credit allowance. If the Minister examines the issue carefully, I am sure that the lives of many people who experience tremendous anguish in trying to cope at home without necessary adaptations will be made much more pleasant.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am glad of the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on this important matter. I listened carefully to his comments, and various points that he raised deserve replies.
The hon. Gentleman described the take-up of moneys allocated to Swansea city council. The figures I have for the latest available year substantially bear out the hon. Gentleman's comments about better take-up by that council. In the previous year, it used less than half the moneys allocated for disabled facilities grants.
I appreciate the difficulties experienced by the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mr. Rogers. That is exactly the sort of case to which we all want to see local authorities responding sympathetically and speedily.
I must correct an apparent confusion in the hon. Gentleman's mind. The sum for disabled facilities grant in the coming year will be £27.9 million, which is £1.5 million more than the current year. In turn, my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State is bringing forward an additional package of a variety of measures to try to help disabled people, totalling £6.6 million, so there is no question of a reduction of £4.7 million in seven days.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that housing has a crucial role to play in the success of community care. If we are to encourage people to continue to lead independent lives in their own homes or non-institutional settings for as long as possible, we need to ensure that their accommodation and the arrangements for their care are appropriate for their individual requirements.
There are impressively high levels of home ownership in Wales, emphasising the importance that the vast majority of people in Wales attach to owning their own homes. Similarly significant is the community spirit, which we are anxious to maintain and enhance and which gives us tremendous opportunities to develop community care in a way that is sensitive to, and takes advantage of the strength of, those communities.
As many homes were built during periods of rapid industrial expansion around the turn of the century, proper maintenance, repair and improvement of those homes plays a vital part in securing their future. It must first be for owners to take responsibility for looking after their homes, but it is important that we provide help for those in need. That is where our home renovation grant arrangements have provided invaluable assistance, not only in renovating and improving property, but also by providing essential adaptations for disabled people in Wales, through disabled facilities grants and minor works assistance.
Rightly, those grants form a very important part of care in the community. By providing substantial assistance to adapt homes for disabled people, they help to ensure that disabled people need not move away from their existing homes, but can remain in familiar surroundings, living in dignity and comfort with the support of families, friends, neighbours and carers. That makes best use of strong, existing communities, which are essential in underpinning the principle of care in the community.
Since the new system was introduced in 1990, disabled facilities grants worth more than £30 million have been made available to disabled people in Wales. We should not underestimate the impact that that has had, not only in providing the facilities to enable people to remain in their own homes, but in easing the difficulties that many of those people who help or care for them may have experienced.
Obviously, disabled facilities grants form part of the wider home renovation grant arrangements. That is especially important as many of the homes in which disabled people live will not only require adaptation but may also need works of repair or improvement.
From the outset, the Government realised that the new grant system would have tremendous value in Wales. The special financial arrangements that applied in the first two years of the new system have ensured that Welsh authorities were well placed, and the system was off to a good start. The substantial sums of the taxpayers' money that we have since made available have helped authorities to tackle the repair, improvement and adaptation of the homes of those who are least able to help themselves. Those have often been the elderly, the disabled, or people who were simply unable to make any contribution towards the cost of repairs under the earlier grant arrangements.
Following the introduction of the current system in 1990, almost £650 million has been provided for home renovation in Wales. Next year, a further £149 million is


allocated for mandatory renovation grants alone—£3.5 million more than in 1993–94. A further £27.9 million, as I have mentioned, is available specifically for disabled facilities and discretionary grants. That is £1.5 million more than this year, and that total of almost £28 million will enable local authorities to give about 6,300 grants for disabled people in Wales at the average grant rate if that money is used for disabled facilities grants alone. Those are substantial sums.
From 1992–93, we have ensured that funding arrangements for disabled facilities grants are such that local authorities can respond more flexibly, in liaison with social services departments, to the needs of people with disabilities in the context of care in the community. With disabled facilities grants being of help in enabling many disabled people to continue to live in their own homes, there will be occasions when alternative approaches may be more suitable and are felt to be more appropriate by the disabled person. The current funding arrangements are designed to enable councils to consider all housing options, including transfer to more suitable accommodation, in responding to the needs of disabled people.
Local authorities have greater operational flexibility in the way in which the moneys are used, so that they may determine their own spending priorities and make the best judgments of how they should respond to the needs of disabled people, alongside other priorities, within the significant total sums from the taxpayer that we have made available.
During the three years since 1992–93, more than £80 million will have been made available in Wales specifically for disabled facilities grants and discretionary renovation grants. In 1992–93, less than half of those sums available for adaptations was spent on such grants. We estimate that, for the current year, the figures will again be no more than half of the available moneys.
There is obviously scope for councils to direct more money to disabled facilities grants. I hope that Welsh local authorities will take full advantage next year of the increase that we have made available to ensure that disabled people can obtain the assistance they need to adapt their homes in the community.
Given the moneys that have been, and are being, made available, there is no reason why any disabled person who is entitled to a grant should not receive the help that he or she needs, where the housing authority and social services department agree that the package of care should include adaptations. There can be no foundation for any suggestion that the absence of a grant can stem from lack of financial provision.
It is essential that there is a partnership between housing and social services authorities in agreeing with the disabled person the package of care that is most suitable for his or her needs. Indeed, there is a statutory duty for housing authorities to consult the social services departments. I know that, in many areas of Wales, effective working relationships and liaison have been developed, and that can only be to the benefit of those seeking assistance.
I urge all Welsh local authorities to consider carefully their current liaison arrangements, to ensure that there is no blockage which may cause difficulties or delays in the

provision of assistance for adaptation, making full and best use of the substantial sums of money that we have made available.
There have been comments about the delays in disabled people receiving the assistance which they deserve, and to which they are entitled. Timing and handling of applications must be a matter for individual councils. Councils must already make decisions on all renovation grants, including disabled facilities grants, within six months of receipt of the application. Councils must, rightly, consult social services colleagues and the disabled person in deciding the most suitable forms of assistance to meet the needs of that individual.
While it remains for the councils to administer the system and determine the priority which they give to applications locally, in so doing they should account for their actions in helping to meet local needs sensitively and sympathetically.
It is essential that the substantial sums of the taxpayers' money available for disabled facilities and mainstream renovation grants are targeted on those people who are in greatest need. The test of resources that currently applies to all grants ensures that those in most need receive the greatest help—up to 100 per cent. of the cost of works. Correspondingly, it is right that those who are able to make a contribution towards the cost of renovation or adaptation to their home should do so. That is essential if those who are not in such a fortunate position are to receive the help they need from the taxpayer.
The Government have recently undertaken a review of the renovation grant system to ensure that it will continue to be effective in tackling housing condition issues over the remainder of the decade. That review also covered disabled facilities grants, and we are grateful for the comments that have been provided by local authorities and others with experience of operating the system.
We are currently looking carefully at the comments that have been made, including those on some aspects of the disabled facilities grant arrangements. Clearly, it would be premature at this stage for me to pre-empt any decision that may emerge from that review, but I can assure the House that the continued provision of help to adapt disabled people's homes, where that is the most suitable approach, will continue to be uppermost in our minds.
Although I have concentrated on adaptations to homes which are owned by disabled people, we must not lose sight of the importance of providing facilities for those tenants of local authorities who may also suffer from disabilities. The principle of community care applies here equally, and it is essential that they too should be given the facilities to remain in their own homes and within their existing communities where that is appropriate.
Councils can, of course, adapt their own housing to the benefit of their tenants. The extent of adaptations carried out, or the possibility of transfer to more suitable council accommodation, must be for the council to consider, in liaison with social services departments and tenants.
Funding for the adaptations will come from the councils' budgets for repair and maintenance of their housing. Again, considerable financial resources have been made available for that in Wales. For the current financial year, some £52 million has been provided. Disabled facilities grants are also available to council tenants if they would prefer that route to secure adaptations to their


homes. Whatever route is chosen, the end result must be the same for council tenants and home owners who may suffer from disabilities.
It is clear that we have recognised the importance of caring for people in their communities by providing substantial support for disabled facilities grants and renovation more generally. Judged by the proportion of the money spent where it is intended, adequate funding is already available, and there is scope for councils to direct more of those moneys to disabled facilities grants. It is essential that the various local authorities and agencies work together in assessing and providing the most suitable package of care for disabled people.
Suitable housing is a vital component of any care package, either through the adaptation of existing homes or the provision of alternative housing. It is important that the accommodation best meets the need of the individual. We have the mechanisms in place to achieve that and we have provided substantial funding to support it. The key issue is that those councils and agencies in the front line provide the packages of care that disabled people deserve and need and to which they are entitled.
The White Paper "Caring for People" placed emphasis on the necessity for effective arrangements for assessing the care needs of people with a wide variety of dependencies. It was recommended that local social service authorities should identify and assess people's needs, taking full account of personal preferences and those of their carers, and design packages of care best suited to enabling people to live as normal a life as possible.
The key objectives remain. The first is to promote the development of domiciliary, day and respite care to enable people to live in their own homes wherever feasible and sensible, and to encourage the targeting of home-based care on those who need it most. The second is to ensure that practical support for carers is a high priority. Assessment of care needs should always take account of the needs of family, friends and neighbours. The third is to make proper assessment of need and good care management the cornerstone of high quality care. Care arrangements should be in line with individual needs and preferences. The fourth is to clarify the responsibilities of agencies and hold them to account for their performance.
That is the basis on which we continue to move forward. I fully share the regard that the hon. Member for Gower has for the importance of disabled facilities grants in Wales. We have made substantial sums available. The basis is right, and we will continue to keep it under review. I look forward to continuing progress.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Voluntary Purchase)

Sir John Stanley: As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport knows, I have had to detain him and the House many times over the past two or three years on the issue of compensation for those who are unfortunate enough to have homes immediately adjacent to the existing rail routes to the channel tunnel. Today, I shall deal with a different but related issue—the position of those who are unfortunate enough to find their homes in the path of the proposed new route, by means of high-speed rail link, between London and the channel tunnel.
For those people, the terms of the voluntary purchase scheme that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in his statement on 24 January are critical. The terms of that scheme will decide whether they can escape from blight in the near future and be able to move by selling their homes to British Rail at an unblighted price, or whether they will be blighted for a considerable time ahead.
This is now a significant regional issue, covering London, Essex and Kent. We are talking about people with homes within the 108 km which is the length of the high-speed line between St. Pancras and the channel tunnel terminal at Cheriton. We are talking about people who are facing blight not just for a year or two. On the most optimistic forecast by British Rail, construction will not begin for two and a half years—at the end of 1996.
Therefore, those people will face blight for some seven to ten years. Even after the channel tunnel rail link is completed, it will take a further year after its full operation for them to be able to seek financial redress for any depreciation in the value of their homes under the injurious affection provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973. This is a profoundly important issue, affecting the people between the two ends of the channel tunnel high-speed rail link.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the voluntary purchase scheme on 24 January, he said that the voluntary purchase arrangements would be available to two groups of homes. The first would be those within the statutorily safeguarded route. The details and maps of the statutorily safeguarded route were released on 25 February. He said also that the voluntary purchase scheme would be extended to another group of homes outside the physical parameters of the statutorily safeguarded zone. I should like to examine the proposals for the voluntary purchase scheme in relation to those two groups of homes, starting with those within the statutorily safeguarded zone.
I was left with the clear impression from my right hon. Friend's statement of 24 January that all homes in the safeguarded zone would be eligible for voluntary purchase, but, on examination of the small print, I find that that is not the case. It turns out that the voluntary purchase scheme extends only to the part of the statutorily safeguarded zone that runs on the surface; it does not extend to the part below the surface.
The key paragraph in the document published by British Rail, which is headed "Guide to Property Purchase Procedures for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link", is paragraph 3.3:
An important distinction is made between property safeguarded at the surface that is, at ground level, and property where the safeguarding applies only to areas below the surface, either for tunnels or ground support works. The voluntary purchase scheme applies only to property included within the surface safeguarded area.
I shall examine the justification provided for the exclusion of properties within the safeguarded zone but where the route lies in tunnel. I must stress the significance of that exclusion. We have been told that 23 per cent. of the route is now in tunnel, which means that the voluntary purchase scheme does not apply to properties along nearly a quarter of the whole route, even though they are within the statutorily safeguarded zone.
In his correspondence to me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State justified the exclusion by reference to the practice that has been followed in schemes to extend the London underground system where blight purchase provisions have not been applied to new underground lines such as the Jubilee line.
I accept that it seems reasonable and fair that, in the construction of an underground line in a city such as London, it would not be possible to proceed if one had to acquire all the properties above the underground line. However, I do not accept that it is fair or reasonable that that precedent should be used as a justification for automatically excluding every other property above the tunnelled sections of the channel tunnel rail link.
It is not reasonable, because there is a world of difference between the impact on property situated above a relatively slow-moving underground line, where trains travel at about 20 or 30 mph in a tunnel with a relatively small diameter, and that on property above a tunnel with a much greater diameter, which carries international trains running at speeds of up to 140 mph. I believe that the latter case needs to be examined separately. It is relevant to me and some of my constituents, because the rail link enters the tunnel under the north downs at Blue Bell hill in my constituency.
I suggest that the Government and British Rail are taking the wrong approach by asking the wrong question. In considering whether the voluntary purchase scheme should apply, they are asking whether a particular home is situated alongside the route on the surface or alongside the route in tunnel. Where the route is on the surface, they say that the scheme should apply but, where it is in tunnel, it should not.
That is the wrong question. The right question is whether the property is or is not blighted. If it is blighted, surely the voluntary purchase scheme should be extended to it, regardless of whether the route is that point on the surface or in tunnel. I have no doubt that the property of my constituents who are in this predicament is blighted. Indeed, I would say that it is comprehensively blighted, and I have brought to the attention. of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the particular cases of Mr. and Mrs. Margerum and Mr. and Mrs. Sandford.
In case there is any doubt in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport about whether

homes have been blighted, I read to him from a letter that I have recently received from Mr. Margerum about his efforts to sell his property in the present circumstances:
We have at U.R.'s"—
Union Railways'—
request, tried to re-market the house. This includes contacting 13 estate agents; 7 of these knowing the situation refused even to come and value. 3 came to view the property but when realising the situation refused to market. 3 others are currently marketing, 2 of these have written reports to us that the proposed works are having an adverse effect, thus making a sale at a reasonable figure unlikely.
Mr. and Mrs. Margerum are now down to one estate agent, and I suspect that it will only be a short while before that estate agent tells them that it is hopeless trying to market their property at a reasonable price. I believe that such homes are without question comprehensively blighted.
The acute difficulties faced by such individuals have been added to by a letter that they received from British Rail at the end of January. I read from a letter received by Mr. Sandford, which is the same as one received by Mr. and Mrs. Margerum. British Rail wrote:
I am writing to let you know that the Secretary of State for Transport has announced the Government's decision on the route to be safeguarded for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. This has been developed by Union Railways for the Department of Transport.
The route selected is proposed to be in tunnel at this point and may affect the subsoil to the property described above.
The property described was, of course, Mr. Sandford's home, and Mr. and Mrs. Margerum received exactly the same letter, which amounted to a formal warning from British Rail that the subsoil to the properties may be affected. That is a devastating letter to receive.
I took up the letter and the terms in which it was written with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He gave me a very interesting and in some ways remarkable reply on 15 March about British Rail's letter. He wrote:
There is no requirement to send such letters, but this was done as a courtesy so that everyone affected by safeguarding knows where they stand.
I doubt whether Mr. and Mrs. Sandford or Mr. and Mrs. Margerum regard it as a great courtesy to receive from British Rail a letter that has a devastating effect on the value of their property for the foreseeable future, and makes it wholly unsaleable.
At the end of his letter, my right hon. Friend provided some remarkable new information, which was wholly excluded from the letter sent by British Rail. He said:
In answer to the point put by Mr. Sandford to Union Railways about possible damage from the construction of the railway, any damage would be put right (though in fact damage is unlikely over such a deep tunnel).
The remarkable situation is that British Rail sent a letter that caused certain and devastating blight to particular houses by saying that the subsoil might be affected but which contained no mention of any rectification of damage—but, lo and behold, the Secretary of State in his letter tosses out the fact that the damage will be rectified. That is no way to deal responsibly and reasonably with individuals.
It is absolutely apparent that the British Rail letter should now be formally withdrawn, and replaced by an alternative letter that would fully discharge the Secretary of State's commitment, by including a full indemnity from British Rail for the owners of properties, and for any subsequent purchasers, against the effects of damage resulting from the construction works due to take place under their homes. It is imperative that that be done.
Secondly, the properties must be dealt with from the standpoint of blight. It is no good making a blanket automatic exclusion from the voluntary purchase scheme of every home above tunnel along the entire route. The issue is whether individual homes are seriously blighted. If they are, in fairness to their owners they should be acquired.
The Secretary of State described the homes that would benefit in the part of the safeguarded route on the surface, where the voluntary purchase scheme applies, as follows:
Homes wholly or substantially required for building the railway, together with those seriously affected by the works or operation of the railway, will be included in the safeguarded zone and will be offered voluntary purchase".—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 20.]
My right hon. Friend included two groups of homes in the scheme, the first of which was those where the land would be
wholly or substantially required for building the railway".
Of course, that is not a concession; it simply gives effect to the standard blight purchase notices provisions that would apply to any transport or highway scheme where the land was required for the development.
The second leg represents a potentially important concession. My right hon. Friend said that, where the land itself was not required but homes would be
seriously affected by the works or operation of the railway",
they would be brought into the safeguarded zone and made the subject of the voluntary purchase scheme.
The critical wording is the phrase, "seriously affected". The worth of the concession will depend entirely on how that phrase is interpreted. It is not satisfactory that British Rail, which has a vested interest in reducing to the minimum the sum that it will have to shell out in compensation, should be the arbiter of whether a property is seriously affected or not.
It is imperative that there should be some independent appellate body to which individuals could turn. The obvious body would be the Lands Tribunal. I urge my right hon. Friend to create an independent body to which people could appeal if they believed that their properties were seriously affected, but British Rail tried to maintain that they were not, and denied them the opportunity to use the scheme.
The second group consists of homes outside the statutorily safeguarded zone. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has agreed in principle that some may be eligible for the voluntary purchase scheme. That reflects the principle embodied in section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, a welcome policy development that acknowledges the fact that property certainly can be blighted even when it is not the subject of statutory blight. Section 62 gives a discretionary power to the highway authority—or, in this case, British Rail—to acquire homes which are blighted but not statutorily blighted.
However, there is a sting in the tail of what the Secretary of State said, to which I drew attention during the questions that followed his statement. The sting in the tail lies in the following wording:
Any other homes that may be affected by operational noise above the proposed threshold for noise insulation will qualify for purchase in cases of hardship."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 20.]
In other words, two criteria will have to be satisfied before individuals can use the concession. First, they have to demonstrate hardship. I hope that British Rail will interpret the word "hardship" in a sympathetic and understanding

way, and will not be tight-fisted, mean and uncaring when, for example, it decides whether an individual illness in a particular family represents hardship.
The other critical requirement is that the predicted noise disturbance must be above the proposed threshold for noise insulation. Here the Government are in danger of making a significant error. The consultation period on the Department of Transport's proposed new noise insulation regulations for railway lines ended in February, and we await the Government's conclusions. However, all the hon. Members who represent constituencies in London, Essex and Kent along the route of the new high-speed rail link believe that the Government are setting the threshold for noise disturbance far too high.
The higher the threshold is set, the fewer the people who will qualify for noise insulation—or, in this case, for having their homes acquired under the voluntary purchase scheme. Indeed, if the Government persist in setting noise thresholds too high, the concession may prove almost worthless. Almost no properties at all may be able to use the scheme under the concession.
As my right hon. Friend knows, among local authorities and residents in the affected areas there is total unanimity on what the noise threshold should be. That level is set out in the papers that I know my right hon. Friend has received.
The standard is described—at least in Kent—as the Kent noise standard, but the paper was sent not only by the Kent district councils and by Kent county council, but by the London borough councils, the Surrey district councils and the Essex district councils, all of which have agreed a basis for the new noise insulation threshold. Of course, it is materially lower than the threshold that the Government originally proposed. I urge my right hon. Friend to adopt the local authorities' Kent noise standard, in preference to that suggested in the consultation paper.
I shall now briefly summarise the four points on which I hope that the Department and my right hon. Friends will be prepared to make changes to the voluntary purchase scheme in connection with the channel tunnel rail link. First, I hope that the scheme will be extended on a case-by-case basis to homes within the safeguarded zones that are above the tunnel sections and are individually well and truly blighted.
Secondly, I urge my right hon. Friend to get British Rail to withdraw the devastating letter dated 31 January that it sent to certain individuals above the tunnelled section, and replace it with an alternative letter that properly gives fair warning that the subsoil may be affected. The alternative letter should include a copper-bottomed legal guarantee to the owner of that property, whether the present owner or the subsequent purchaser, of full indemnification if the property is disturbed as a result of the tunnelling operations due to take place.
Thirdly, I am asking that there should be established, for those who have homes in the area of the line where it runs on the surface within the safeguarded zone, an independent tribunal, probably the Lands Tribunal. That tribunal should arbitrate independently and on the basis of the facts between individual home owners and British Rail on whether or not individual properties will be "seriously affected", either by the works or by the operation—the key trigger as to whether or not one can take advantage of the voluntary purchase scheme.
Fourthly, I am asking that the owners of those properties outside the safeguarded zone should be helped by the Government in the following way. When the Government


lay before the House the noise insulation regulations, they should introduce a noise insulation threshold that is more reasonable, significantly lower and preferably the Kent noise standard. That acoustic threshold would ensure that those who face disturbance from the channel tunnel rail link trains, but who live outside the safeguarded zone, will be able to benefit from the voluntary purchase scheme and escape the blight.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) for his consistence and perseverance in setting out to protect my constituents, as well as his, against the worst effects of blight. His work on compensation deserves the highest praise, and the gratitude of us all. I am grateful to him for allowing me to have two or three minutes to speak in this important debate.
I strongly endorse all that my right hon. Friend has said, particularly the need for some form of independent appeal. The voluntary purchase scheme operates in an arbitrary way. There are clear cases which, in my view and that of my right hon. Friend, should be treated sympathetically. We must have some independent appeal that overrides the internal and secret workings of Union Railways' or British Rail's tribunals.
The issue of noise is important. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport knows, many of us are deeply concerned about the intention to build a line capable of running trains at 180 mph, while building in the noise protection necessary for trains that run at 140 mph. It seems that, if the capacity to run faster trains exists, as soon as the signalling is capable of absorbing it, whoever runs the line in future will undoubtedly run faster trains. As I understand it, that will have considerable effects on noise. I hope that that will be part of the current planning.
There is a serious difficulty with blight. The length of time taken to complete a big project exceeds—by 2.5 generations of normal house ownership—the occupation of a family in a house. Most families spend, on average, less than six years in their homes. Many of the projects, particularly the one that we are discussing, will take at least 10 years. The one under discussion will take 15 years to complete. That is a long period for people to be unable to sell their houses at anything other than a distress sale price, leaving them with no scope for buying an alternative home.
Action groups and others face a cruel dilemma. We recently had a meeting at which North Downs Rail Concern advised as many solicitors, estate agents and professional advisers as possible to come to a presentation. We explained how much additional protection had been won by the work of action groups and others since the line was first proposed. As Union Railways will agree, the effect of such action has, in some ways, exacerbated the sense of blight. However, had we not fought like cats to win the protection, we would not have achieved the remarkable improvements in protection that have been obtained.
It is not just a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister. The Government must think about ways of achieving some buyer of last resort for people whose

properties have been plunged into blight by large-scale Government schemes, but who are outside the statutory blight corridor.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Once again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has done the House a service by raising specific issues; he has certainly focused my attention and that of the officials in the Department. I shall respond to the four points that he raised, but it may be helpful to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) if I put on record a number of the points that relate generally to the voluntary purchase scheme.
Since the debate on 13 January, we have announced the route of the new channel tunnel rail link, with the exception of Ashford and Pepper hill, where we expect to reach a decision in the next few weeks. When we announce our conclusions, we shall be able to safeguard the entire route. We have also issued formal safeguarding directions for the route, except for the two exceptions that I mentioned.
Those directions came into force on 25 February, and are essentially a planning mechanism to ensure that conflicting development does not take place on land required for the purpose of an undertaking—in this case, the rail link. They also initiate the statutory blight arrangements for affected homes. Union Railways wrote to all those affected at the time, and has also produced a guide to property purchase procedures for the rail link, from which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling has quoted.
Two safeguarded zones have been defined in the safeguarding directions and shown on the plans that accompany them. One is for land required for surface works, and the other is largely for land above deep-bored tunnels. The surface safeguarding creates a right to statutory blight compensation where homes and some other properties would be wholly or substantially required.
So that those affected know where they stand, all those homes included in the surface safeguarded zone will be offered voluntary purchase without the need to demonstrate a statutory right to compensation. Purchase will be on the same basis as if the houses were being acquired under a compulsory purchase order. The owners will be paid the market value of the home as if the rail link proposal did not exist, plus home loss payments, legal and agents' fees and disturbance costs as appropriate.
If agreement cannot be reached on voluntary purchase, blight notices may be served by the property owners qualifying, and any disputes can then be settled by the Lands Tribunal. That tribunal would also settle any disputes on statutory compensation for compulsory purchase and compensation for loss of value due to the physical effects of the operation of the rail link on the surface or in the tunnel under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
Compensation under that Act is a statutory right, and may be claimed 12 months after the start of use of the rail link. That is simply because time is needed to assess the actual impact, whether in tunnel or on the surface, of the railway once it is operational.
Advanced predictions of the physical effects, such as re-radiated noise, would probably not be sufficiently precise, and could cause later problems associated with


overpayment and underpayment. It would not be right for compensation to be available from an earlier date than the normal 12 months, especially as, during the construction period and for a time thereafter, the property market may well be distorted by the effects of the project. There could be difficulty in assessing the extent of any long-term drop in the value of homes.
However, exacting design aims have been set for the rail link, not only for noise, but for all other areas of potential environmental impact, such as vibration. Our paper on property purchase and compensation policy explains that the thinking behind this is that it is better to limit the environmental intrusion at source, as far as reasonably practicable, by putting the rail link in a cutting or providing mitigation in the form of noise barriers and landscaping, than to rely simply on compensation.
Union Railways has included in the surface safeguarded zone all the land that may be acquired, either temporarily or permanently, for the rail link and associated works, including land required for construction sites and ventilation shaft sites, and homes seriously affected by the works or operation of the railway have also been included. Having purchase arrangements related to property taken or seriously affected is nothing new; it is the accepted practice for road building. It is a tribute to the abilities of Union Railways in designing the project that so few homes need to be taken or are judged to be seriously affected and hence included in the zone.
In general, Union Railways is not seeking to acquire non-residential property at present before compulsory purchase powers are sought in the hybrid Bill for the rail link. Any non-residential property owner and occupier whose property interest meets the criteria for statutory blight is invited to contact Union Railways to discuss the position.
Acquisition by mutual agreement, with the blight notice procedure being held in reserve, can then be discussed. Statutory blight procedures for non-residential property apply to commercial properties with a rateable value not exceeding £18,000, and agricultural units. For properties not meeting the statutory blight criteria, purchase notice procedures may apply, as provided for in part IV of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Again, property owners and occupiers considering a purchase notice are invited to contact the relevant local planning authority, and to advise Union Railways of their position.
I know from the representations that I have received that many argue that a much wider surface safeguarded zone is needed. There is no planning argument for extending the safeguarded zone further, although I appreciate that, as an alternative, some people would like to see a purchase buffer zone apply along the route beyond the safeguarded zone.
It is true that such buffer zones, a set distance from the track, have been tried in the past, but after initial enthusiasm, the communities affected have found them a mixed blessing. That is because, first, a standard width zone, regardless of its width, is somewhat arbitrary and creates many anomalies and complaints about fairness. For example, a property over 100 m from the rail link in open country may be more affected than one half the distance away but shielded by buildings, or one that is close to the rail link but on the far side of a motorway from it.
The second reason is that, wherever the line is drawn, there is a perceived blighting effect just beyond it, and the wider and more arbitrary the delineation of the zone, the greater this problem tends to become.
Thirdly, in a wide zone, the increasing loss of neighbours and an influx of new neighbours on short-term leases is in itself perceived as generating blight. The people—usually the majority—who originally had no intention of moving as a result of the railway proposals increasingly feel that the community is changing too much for them to stay.
That is why we feel that the surface safeguarded zone is best restricted, as far as possible, to the homes that are either taken or seriously affected by the works, and that it should not be influenced by general fears or the perception of blight where in reality none should exist. As we said in our paper last year, this has to be coupled with the provision of information on impacts, particularly to building societies and estate agents, to try to bring fears down to the level of the likely impacts.
In addition to the homes included in the surface safeguarded zone, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said in his January announcement, any other homes that may be affected by operational noise above the proposed threshold for noise insulation contained in the draft railway noise regulations will qualify for purchase in cases of hardship.
As with highway schemes, hardship needs to be proven, and each case is looked at individually. Those who think that they may qualify for the scheme should contact Union Railways. I should stress that the scheme is not a statutory requirement, and that decisions are entirely at the discretion of Union Railways.
As I have said, homes within the surface safeguarded zone will be offered voluntary purchase. In line with long-established practice for underground railways, purchase is not available for homes above bored tunnels. The practical evidence of underground railways in use is that their impacts are not sufficiently serious to justify purchase.
Land within 40 m of the centre line at a tunnel portal has been surface-safeguarded. Where land falls within the criteria for both surface and sub-surface safeguarding, the surface safeguarding will always prevail. Where tunnels are shallow—less than 9 m below the ground—the land above would normally be subject to surface safeguarding.
In addition, we have made it clear that property surveys will be undertaken of potentially affected homes both before and after construction of the rail link, and any damage caused by construction, including settlement due to tunnelling, will be put right. Any loss of value of homes caused by the physical effects of the rail link in operation in tunnel—from re-radiated noise, for example—may qualify for compensation under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
In the construction of the rail link, every effort will be made to minimise the impacts. However, if a home were made temporarily uninhabitable because of the disturbance, compensation would be paid in respect of the cost of moving to temporary accommodation. A code of practice for construction will be drawn up in consultation with the local authorities.
I now turn to the four points made by my right hon. Friend. I am grateful for his patience in letting me get on the record some wider points.
First, my right hon. Friend has not convinced me, on his first point, that all houses—he referred specifically to those above the tunnel—that are blighted should be bought. Blight is clearly a very real problem, which often arises from people's perceptions and is not based on hard evidence of what might be the effects of the construction and operation of the tunnel.
I cannot concede the general principle, which my right hon. Friend is forcing on me, that all houses that are blighted above tunnels should be bought. If one thinks of the number of houses that would be affected in Greater London, for example, one realises that thousands of properties could be involved.
My right hon. Friend has advanced powerful arguments on his second point, and he has persuaded me that the present position is not satisfactory. There is doubt what the consequences would be for property if the subsoil, for example, was affected. My right hon. Friend quoted from a letter which caused me concern when I read it.
My right hon. Friend is also concerned about the nature of any indemnity that would be offered if there was settlement. I take his point about an assurance or guarantee being given in writing. Although I repeat at the Dispatch Box that in all cases of settlement or structural damage there is an absolute guarantee that the damage will be put right, I take my right hon. Friend's point that that assurance should be repeated in writing.
I also take on board my right hon. Friend's point about what the distinction is between underground rail tunnels and broad-gauge rail link tunnels in terms of re-radiated noise. We have little experience, because we have not built such tunnels before. I am happy to repeat that if, as a result of re-radiated noise—that is when the building itself vibrates as a result of the movement of the trains—there is any reduction in value, under the Land Compensation Act there will be payments. That, of course, comes after the tunnel is open and the trains are running.
On my right hon. Friend's second point, I undertake—I shall take official advice—to reflect on the need to issue, or to have issued by Union Railways, fresh advice. There will be a new letter to all those affected who live over tunnels, not only to set out the best scientific evidence

we have on settlement and re-radiated noise, but to explain precisely what the rights of the owners of the properties are. I shall read the record to ensure that I have covered my right hon. Friend's point. I hope that he is satisfied with that answer.
Thirdly, I also believe that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent have deployed powerful arguments in relation to the definition of properties that will or will not be seriously affected by the safeguarded route. That must be a matter of judgment—I understand that—but it is in a category wholly different from whether a property is affected by the hardship scheme or not outside the safeguarded zone.
I understood my right hon. Friend to be referring to the safeguarded zone and to properties that might or might not be seriously affected. He has deployed powerful arguments there, and I shall reflect on whether it might be sensible to seek to clarify the position and perhaps—I can give no commitment from the Dispatch Box—whether there might be some reference to an independent party to establish whether a property or land is or is not seriously affected.
Fourthly, there is the question of the land outside the safeguarded zone. Not only properties affected by noise above the threshold may qualify for the hardship scheme; in some cases, others will qualify. I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 4.4 of the document issued by Union Railways.
Union Railways must define hardship, because this is a voluntary ex gratia scheme. However, I take my right hon. Friend's point about the noise threshold. The higher the threshold, the fewer properties will be purchased: we shall therefore pay close attention to the advice offered by local authorities.
I look forward to a debate later in the year—but, I trust, before the House rises for the summer recess—on noise thresholds, for which we shall seek the House's approval.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before I call the next speaker, I must notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
British Railways Act 1994.

Asylum Seekers

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I want to discuss the treatment of asylum seekers in Britain. It is a serious matter—indeed, a scandal of growing proportions.
I have notified you, Madam Deputy Speaker—and the Minister—of the wish of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Hornsey and 'Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), if he arrives, to speak briefly. We shall keep an eye on the time, so that everyone can have a say.
The asylum issue has acquired growing political importance. The newspapers seek to portray all who seek asylum as economic migrants, bogus asylum seekers or ne'er-do-wells. We should recognise, however, that, over the centuries, waves of people have fled from religious or social intolerance, political oppression, violence or wars, and have sought safety and sanctuary elsewhere. Centuries ago, people fled from this country to others; successive waves of people have come here from elsewhere in Europe.
Our history would be very different but for those waves of migrants. The social history of much of London, and many of London's achievements, can be traced to people who have fled to escape oppression. Jewish communities have come from Russia and Nazi Germany; people have come from the low countries; more recently, others have fled from oppression in different parts of the world.
The world is now in great turmoil. Many people are unable to speak freely: they fear the knock on the door at 4 am, and being taken away by the police. They also fear that, if they went to a police station and made inquiries about friends or relatives who had been taken away, they too would be arrested. People languish in fetid prisons around the world; those people seek asylum and safety.
We should never underestimate the enormous step involved in leaving one's own country, possibly never to return or to see family arid friends again, and possibly unable to pursue a career. We should bear in mind the importance of that fateful decision. I know of people who, in their own countries, were professors, doctors and leading academics; now they are sweeping the streets of this capital city, unemployed or washing up in restaurants. Although such jobs are valuable and useful, those people could be doing something better suited to their skills.
Asylum seekers come from countries with oppressive regimes and a lack of human rights, where people are often in social danger. We should also bear in mind the foreign-policy impact: the policies adopted by the British and United States Governments—and a number of others—in regard to oppressive regimes are double-handed and full of double standards, to say the least. While people were fleeing from Chile during the Pinochet years, the British Government were selling arms to that same dictatorship. The Zaire regime has been supported by the west because it has carried out the wishes of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, and the west has chosen to ignore many of its human-rights abuses.
Like many others, this country is a signatory to the 1951 Geneva convention, which guarantees a place of safety to people in legitimate fear of persecution on political, religious or social grounds. However, the record of the British Government—and that of Britain as a whole—is not particularly good. We tend to view history through

rose-tinted spectacles; we tend to say that we knew about all that went on in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, and supported the victims of Nazi oppression.
That is not true: too many Jewish people were not admitted to other countries as the Nazi holocaust developed. Too many were not granted places of safety. I think of those poor people who died on a ship in the Black sea because no one was prepared to take them in at a crucial time in their lives. Our record is not as wonderful as we like to make out.
There has also been what I call the deterrent factor—the way in which, over the years, British Governments have sought to deter people from seeking asylum here; the way in which the visa regime was introduced in 1984, aimed particularly at Sri Lanka; the way in which Members of Parliament were not allowed to intervene to stop deportations at that time. A large number of Tamil people sought safety elsewhere, but, not unnaturally and not unreasonably, a number of them chose to come to Britain: Sri Lanka was once a British colony, after all, and many of them had significant family and educational ties with this country.
Another deterrent was the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987—an attempt, in my view, to pass immigration and asylum control in part to the airlines. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 increased the fines to £2,000 per case, and a great deal of money has been paid as a result.
The legislation has also acted as a spivs' charter. It is possible to go to any travel agency in Istanbul and obtain a single ticket to London for about £100; but for a Kurdish person fleeing from Turkey to seek asylum in this country, the fare is not £100 or £500, but more like £1,500. That means that the airline can pay the fine, if there is one, as well as the cost of sending the person back to Turkey if he is not admitted to this country. That does not strike me as a whole-hearted adherence to the principles of the 1951 Geneva convention; it strikes me as the exact opposite.
Last Christmas, some Jamaicans arrived in this country for a holiday. Their treatment presents an appalling vista. They were detained at the Campsfield detention centre, and many were deported. I understand that—despite questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West—the Home Office is still unable to say how much it cost to send those people back to Jamaica. We need some answers from the Home Office, and some openness.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: My hon. Friend mentioned the Campsfield detention centre. As he will know, a number of people have been on hunger strike there. One of them, a constituent of mine, is an asylum seeker. She has now ended her hunger strike, and has collapsed. Her family want her to be taken to hospital, but to date that option has been denied her. Is it not disgraceful that someone who is clearly ill and in need of hospital treatment—as opposed to medical treatment at Campsfield—should be denied it?

Mr. Corbyn: It is not only a scandal; it is at variance with what I have been told by the Home Office and Group 4 about the treatment of people in that detention centre. The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West was able to go inside the centre: no doubt he will speak about that shortly. I shall return to the subject in a moment; first, however, let me make two other brief points.
I have explained the way in which the law in this country—the use of the third-country option—acts as a deterrent to people seeking asylum. There is a growing trend in the Home Office not to grant asylum, but to grant exceptional leave to remain; that means that people cannot be joined by their families for at least four years. People from Somalia who have sought asylum here, knowing that their families and loved ones are languishing in refugee camps somewhere in that part of Africa and cannot even contact them, are experiencing heartache and misery.
Those who are able to settle in this country often have great difficulty in obtaining housing, and some difficulty in securing educational opportunities. The Government should recognise the specific needs of those refugee communities in their funding of local authorities—especially those in the north and east of London, such as Islington, Haringey, Hackney, Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets. Likewise, the Government's cut in section 11 funding has meant enormous problems in many schools, where English as a second language needs to be taught.
It must be clearly understood that people who seek asylum do so because they are forced into it. They are high-achieving and determined, and seek to make an enormous contribution. One can think back through history to all the contributions made by refugees.
An interesting report has been written for the Detention Advice Service by Kathy Lowe entitled "Britain's Forgotten Prisoners". It says:
Use of detention powers by the Home Office and immigration authorities has reached its highest level ever. Also increasing is the length of time detainees are being held—up to 18 months in some cases. In 1991, detained asylum seekers came mainly from Africa, Asia, the Americas and the Middle East. Only 4 out of 21 countries involved were in Europe. The following year, the largest groups detained came from India, Zaire, Nigeria and Ghana.
It appears that, as asylum seekers now come from south Asia and Africa rather than Europe as in the past, the attitude of the Home Office has changed a great deal, and there appears to be a race motive.
The report produced for the Detention Advice Service makes a number of proposals that give a great deal of support. It quotes from the reputable organisation, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, on the support that should be given to detainees. Tragically, they are not given that support.
A survey of 125 asylum detainees between November 1993 and January 1994 shows that there were 122 males and three females, mostly aged under 30. The majority were Christian, although their nationalities varied, with the largest numbers being from Algeria, Angola, Nigeria and Zaire. In most cases, they spoke only the language of their own country.
Furthermore, 27 were in detention centres, 95 were in prisons, one was in a police station and the detention place of two others was not stated. A number of detainees had been moved several times, and nearly half had been moved at least twice. More than 25 had been detained for more than six months or up to a year. None of the detainees had a criminal record, had been to a court, or had a charge against him. They were imprisoned at the pleasure of the Home Office under the powers conferred upon it by the immigration Acts.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West and I asked a series of questions about what is going on at

Campsfield, where the majority of those asylum seekers are held, we discovered that the Home Office was first informed of the hunger strike on 18 February—more than a month ago. No public statement has been issued by the Home Office on that issue. It has taken persistence by a number of hon. Members even to get answers to questions here.
According to an answer that I received on 18 March, guidance based on prison service procedures is issued to staff at Campsfield house. It says:
An immigration detainee refusing food for more than three days is offered advice and treatment by the Campsfield House medical team and this is repeated on a daily basis as part of the detailed monitoring … Treatment would be administered only with the individual's consent.
It does not say whether detainees have a right to go to hospital, but I should have thought from the wording of the answer that they should have such a right.
On the same day, I asked about the origin of the detainees held at Campsfield house
by (a) country of origin, (b) those held for less than one month, (c) one to six months and (d) more than six months.
The information given was that 139 of the 179 on hunger strike were held for one to six months and 11 for more than six months.
An answer that I received on the same day beggars belief. I had asked the Minister:
how many detainees of Campsfield Detention Centre are (a) asylum seekers, (b) appellants against refusal and (c) awaiting deportation".
The answer was unbelievable. It said:
The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, 18 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 895, 894.]
If the origins of those people are known, and if the Home Office knows where it put them, how on earth can it claim not to know their status?
A hunger strike is an extremely big step. Potentially, it ends in death. It is a cry for help and a cry of desperation. The Minister would do well to look at a report written by Ghada Karmi and others for the North-East and North-West Thames regional health authorities' ethnicity programme on "Suicide among Ethnic Minorities and Refugees". The number is not higher than the national average of suicides, but one must consider the question of asylum seekers in this country who commit suicide.
A letter sent by the Refugee Legal Group to the Home Secretary on 24 March said:
Despite the Home Office's undertaking to speed up consideration of asylum claims, many of those on strike have no reply on their asylum claims for several months. Indeed, as at 21 January 1994, more than 80 people had been detained in excess of six months. Others have been refused asylum on grounds which, at times, range from the debatable to the patently unfair. To our knowledge, none has been given an adequate reason for their detention, and there is no effective right to appeal against those reasons before any sort of independent court or review body. This is … in breach of … Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights".
It also leads to despair and desperation among those on hunger strike.
I received a letter out of the blue on 17 March from Group 4 Security, which told me that it was not force-feeding people on hunger strike. I was glad to hear that claim. Nonetheless, an awful lot of psychological pressure is put on hunger strikers, including separations, moving to prisons and, I understand, offensive remarks made to individuals.
Two Algerian asylum seekers took part in a peaceful demonstration last Saturday outside Campsfield detention centre. When they signed on at the local police stations in Leyton and Islington yesterday, they were promptly arrested and taken back into custody, with no reason given. An answer I received on 24 March says that Group 4 has a contract to look after people at Campsfield detention centre. It says:
All Group 4 Total Security Limited staff employed under contract to provide detention management services receive a minimum of 15 days initial training on all aspects of health and safety, race relations, domestic management and duty of care towards immigration detainees. A refresher course is provided after one year's service".—[Official Report, 24 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 346–7.]
It is alarming that they are given only 15 days training before being responsible for the health and welfare of a large number of people.
We have now discovered that those people have been moved to a series of prisons and police stations. When we asked the Secretary of State the cost of holding people in asylum, he said:
The available information does not identify separately those detention costs which relate to people who have sought asylum."—[Official Report, 25 March 1994; Vol.240, c.442.]
I find that surprising.
The BBC contacted me the other day saying that, of the 47,000 people in this country who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom, only 645 are presently being detained. They asked me to admit that that was an insignificant number. I said that it sounded like 645 denials of justice.
If people seek asylum, they should be treated properly. If there is a case against them, it should be out in the open and examined in court. But it is not right that those who seek asylum end up in prison with no charges against them, and no right of appeal other than to bodies appointed by the Home Office in the first place. It is a scandal of the greatest proportions, and it is time that the lid was taken off it. We do not want more hunger strikes or deaths as a result of people seeking safety in this country from oppression in other parts of the world.

Mr. Max Madden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on securing this debate. May I express my support for his views? It is significant that my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Leicestershire, East (Mr. Vaz) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) are here. If arrangements were easier, many more hon. Members on both sides of the House would be here, because of the growing concern about the extent of detention to which people, including those seeking asylum, are subject. Detention has now become a central part of the Government's immigration control.
The latest figures show that, during the past 12 months, about 9,000 people were placed in detention, from all immigration categories, including asylum seekers. At present, 645 asylum seekers are in detention; 70 of them are refusing to eat; and about 23 of the 70 are at Campsfield house, which I visited on Tuesday. Ten of those 23 men and women have been refusing food for 18 days, eight for 17 days, one for 16 days and one for 11 days.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, at the peak of the campaign to refuse food, which started in February, with a second phase starting in early

March, about 120 people at Campsfield were refusing food. Their refusal to eat is not a protest against the building in which they are kept—facilities there are much better than those in any prison or detention centres that I have visited in this country and abroad—but a protest about the length of time for which they have been held in detention, and the Government's refusal to allow more applications for asylum to be considered while applicants are living in the community and reluctance to grant what is called "temporary admission".
Of the 180 people detained in Campsfield house when I visited it on Tuesday, 43 had been held for between three and six months, 44 for between six and nine months, three for between nine and 12 months and five for 12 months or more. About 55 men and women at Campsfield house have now been held there for between three and 12 months, which is disgraceful. There is no reason why people should be held in detention for that length of time.
I thank all the officials I met at Campsfield house on Tuesday for the time and attention they gave me when showing me the facilities and answering my many questions. A qualified doctor was brought to Campsfield house on a regular basis only as recently as 10 days ago to monitor the health of people refusing to eat. I was told on Tuesday that two detainees had been referred to hospital, one for refusing treatment and the other because the doctor felt that he was in need of psychiatric treatment.
It is clear that it was some weeks after the hunger strike campaign began before a qualified doctor and nurses were brought to Campsfield house to monitor their medical condition properly; that fact is reinforced by the chairman of the visiting panel and the doctor.
It is also clear that the Home Office had not envisaged the need for psychiatric help, counselling and support, which is required by asylum seekers, many of whom are fleeing from torture, violence and unknown honors. It is wrong not to have made such arrangements for detainees at Campsfield house. I am also confident that they are not made at other detention centres.
The Government are wrong to propose additional detention places. A more appropriate use of Campsfield house would be as a detention centre for young offenders, which is what it used to be. Harmondsworth should be closed, and there is no case for the 500 additional detention places that the Government are planning.
The other urgent reform is to give detainees rights. A detainee, including an asylum seeker, has no rights. It is high time that they should have the right to apply for bail, that there should be independent scrutiny of the length of time that they are held in detention, and that they should have free access to qualified and proper legal advice and representation.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North on securing the debate, and on his extensive work to highlight the plight of asylum seekers, their conditions and the need for reforms in the way in which they are treated. I hope that the debate will play an important part in securing those important reforms.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on securing this debate. The treatment of asylum seekers in this country is an important issue, which has recently been


the target of much misinformation and ill-informed comment—we have heard some examples of that this morning—within a narrow band of public opinion. I welcome the opportunity to explain Government thinking.
Before I expand my remarks, I shall mention some of the errors of fact. The hon. Member for Islington, North will recall from the Standing Committee on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, in which we both participated not long ago, that a statutory obligation is placed on all local authorities to provide accommodation for people who have been issued with a standard acknowledgement letter after applying for asylum. He is aware of that fact.
I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue when the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said that, altogether, 9,000 people are in detention—the figure that he had in mind was probably 900. About 940 people, and not 9,000, are in detention at any one time.

Mr. Madden: I was careful not to say, at any one time. I said that the latest figures for the past 12 months show that 9,000 people, in all immigration categories, were held in detention. I was also careful to say that 650 are being held in detention.

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and I accept his point. There are 650 asylum applicants. The reason for the misunderstanding between us was that, including all immigration cases, there are a few more than 9,000. His statistic is right, but he did not say that many of those people are detained only overnight before leaving this country.
On the remarks that the hon. Member for Bradford, West made about medical care, I want to make it clear that, from the moment that Campsfield house opened, qualified medical attention was on hand, in the form of general practitioners. Any reference to hospital is based on medical advice.
The hon. Member for Islington, North concentrated his remarks on the use of detention, but he also mentioned the wider subject of asylum. I hope that the House will allow me to comment on the broader picture.
In recent years, every western European country has faced a steep increase in the number of people seeking asylum. The United Kingdom has been no exception. The number of asylum seekers entering the United Kingdom rose sharply from about 4,000 in 1988 to a peak of 45,000 in 1991. Following the introduction of new screening procedures, the number of applications fell to 25,000 in 1992, but that was still about five times higher than the figure for 1988. Last year, there were a further 23,000 new asylum applications.
As anyone who sat through the debates on the Bill that became the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 will know, only a small minority of those applications are made by people who are genuine refugees under the terms of the Geneva convention, which obliges signatories to consider asylum applications carefully and deliberately.
This country has a proud and consistent record in its treatment of refugees. We will take no lectures from anyone about our willingness to protect those people in real danger of persecution. Our humanitarian record is second to none.

Mr. Corbyn: If the Government are so proud of their record of caring for people in detention, will the Minister at least apologise for the deaths of Siho Igguven in Harmondsworth detention centre in 1989 and of Lamumba in Pentonville prison last year?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman knows that there have already been responses to those cases. I am talking about this country's humanitarian record; on reflection, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me.
Asylum applications on the scale of those of recent years put a great strain on decision taking systems. Delays have occurred in most western countries. Delay is the friend of the unentitled and of the person who wants to spin out his or her stay for as long as possible. The large number of asylum applications that this country has received has put severe pressure on the system, but as a result of various measures that we have taken, the backlog at the end of 1993 stood at about 46,000, compared with about 70,000 at the end of 1991.
The great majority of asylum seekers are therefore people who would simply like to settle here and who have no reason to fear persecution if they return to their own countries. That is not just the British view; it is the experience of many other countries, including our European partners. 
Fewer than 5 per cent. of applications in the United Kingdom are found to be justified under the Geneva convention—that is to say, that the people in question have a well founded fear of persecution. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees figures show that countries such as Belgium, Germany and Italy have broadly similar recognition rates.
We are determined to maintain a firm approach, to avoid encouraging opportunist applications from persons who have already reached a place of refuge. The 1951 convention does not confer any right on individuals to travel from country to country in order to reach their preferred destination. Asylum seekers are expected to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. When they arrive here, having passed through a safe third country, they will usually be returned to that country for consideration of their application. Nevertheless, under the 1993 Act they have a right of appeal against such a decision.
The purpose of the Dublin convention is to combat the twin problems of asylum seekers shuttling from one country to another and "asylum shopping" within the member states of the European Union for a preferred place of residence. It does so by setting out clear criteria for establishing which country has the obligation to examine applications for asylum.
The 12 member states of the EU are committed to a work programme that leads towards harmonisation of asylum policies and procedures. Harmonisation, however, does not mean uniformity, and changes will not come overnight. That is because each member state's approach is embedded in national laws, procedural approaches and traditions. All discussions among the 12 take full account of member states' broader humanitarian traditions and obligations, including those under the European convention on human rights.
This is the essential background to our short debate; reading and listening to some recent commentary on detention, one could be forgiven for thinking that all asylum seekers were by definition refugees. In a recent


editorial in one national newspaper, those refusing food at Campsfield house were described throughout as refugees. In fact, three quarters of them were people who had already been refused asylum, and many had also had appeals refused. They were simply waiting for documentation from their home countries so that they could return to them.
As I have said, the widespread use of asylum seeking to secure entry to a country for which no such leave has been given represents a real threat to effective—firm but fair—immigration control. We have a responsibility to receive and care for those who are genuine refugees, but we also have a responsibility to deal firmly with those who are not.
Our experience is that, to have any chance of achieving this, it is necessary to maintain detention facilities for use in a small minority of cases. Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I relish that; but it is a fact of life that, without these facilities, some people who have no right to remain in this country would have every incentive to disappear into the community, to live here, and quite possibly to work or draw social security, and use local authority housing, the NHS and the state education system.
Decisions to detain, I can assure the House, are not taken lightly. It is the immigration service's policy to use detention only as a last resort. The initial decision is taken by a chief immigration officer. If it proves impossible to release or remove the detainee immediately, the decision to detain is reviewed within 24 hours by an immigration service inspector. Thereafter, all detention is reviewed locally at least every seven days. After one month, the case is reviewed at immigration service headquarters, monthly and at an increasingly senior level—so that all those detained for six months or more are reviewed by a director of the service.
The criteria applied are strict. Detention is used only when there is no alternative and when there are good grounds for believing that the person will not comply with the restrictions voluntarily. Staff taking these decisions are expected to take account of all the relevant factors, including a person's history and links, if any, with family and friends in this country.
The consequence is that detention is resorted to for any length of time in a tiny minority of asylum cases. On 17 March, there were 654 people in detention who at one stage or another had claimed asylum. That is less than 1.5 per cent. of the number of outstanding asylum applications. In fact, the true percentage is even lower, since most of the 654 had already had their asylum applications refused.
Opposition Members have today made much of the fact that the number of those in detention who at one stage or another have claimed asylum has increased significantly in the past year. It is true that there has been an increase in the number of those detained, but that is hardly surprising, as one of the purposes of the new asylum legislation was to streamline the process so that more cases could be brought to a conclusion more promptly.
Typically, detention is used towards the end of the process for short periods before a person is removed from the country—that accounts for the vast majority of those to whom the hon. Member for Bradford, West referred. Some are detained earlier, and for a few detainees overall periods of detention are still—the procedures introduced by the new Act last year notwithstanding—longer than I would wish.
It has been alleged that no detention decisions may be challenged. That is either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of the facts. In the great majority of

asylum cases, detainees have an opportunity to apply for bail to the independent appellate authorities, appointed not by the Home Office but by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The exceptions are when they have been detained as illegal entrants and, having been apprehended, have claimed asylum. Other exceptions are when appeal rights have been exhausted and all that remains is to effect removal. But anyone refused asylum has a right of appeal under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.
Anyone who has an appeal pending may apply to the independent appellate authorities for bail. It follows that all people detained who have been refused asylum and who have appealed may apply to the appellate authorities for bail at any stage until the appeal has finally been dismissed. That includes people given notices of intention to deport them and illegal immigrants who have been refused asylum.

Mr. Corbyn: Our point is that people should be able to appeal against decisions in open court. They should also receive legal aid to have their cases properly heard. We object to this internal system which employs people appointed by the Government. Asylum seekers should enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

Mr. Wardle: I do not agree. I do not think that a separate detention review body would make sense. The independent immigration adjudicators, appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department, are well respected experts. It goes with the grain of our system to place in their hands the power to grant bail on application in suitable cases. I see no reason to alter that arrangement. The picture that has been painted, of a system out of control in which detention is used on whim and indiscriminately, is thus very far from the truth.
The hon. Member for Islington, North also mentioned accommodation. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bradford, West, who visited Campsfield house earlier this week, say some complimentary things about the facilities there. Campsfield house is a well appointed, newly refurbished new centre, opened in December for this purpose. The difference between it and Haslar is that the latter has more educational facilities. Haslar is used almost exclusively for immigration detainees, and it operates on lines similar to the immigration detention centres at Harmondsworth and Campsfield house.
These apart, there are rather more than 200 immigration detainees in prisons. Some are so violent or disruptive that there is no alternative, but I should still like the numbers in prison to be reduced. What we can and do ensure, however, is that, where detainees are held in ordinary prisons, they have full access to their representatives and are, wherever possible, held separately from convicted prisoners. Anyone in those circumstances who chooses to leave the country can leave detention and leave the country straight away.
Partly in an effort to enable less reliance to be placed on the prison service, there is a programme in hand to create new purpose-built facilities, and Campsfield house is an example. We are planning a total of 350 additional places.
Ample arrangements exist at Campsfield and other detention centres for access by advisers, representatives and other visitors. Information is provided in a number of languages, and at Campsfield there is an introductory video for new arrivals.
One newspaper recently described Campsfield house as the Department's special isolation unit. Having seen it


myself, as I know the hon. Member for Bradford, West has done, I know that it is nothing of the sort; it is a decent, well-managed environment in which to carry out a difficult but essential function.
That brings me to the refusal of food by detainees, which has attracted the attention of some of the media to the detention arrangements in recent weeks. This morning, just three detainees at Campsfield, and a total of 28 detainees across the country, are still refusing food. I regret that some people have decided to take this course. If they have done so in the belief that it would assist their cases or lead to generalised release of those taking part, they are sadly mistaken.
No one will alter the merits of his case by refusing meals. We cannot stop people abusing their health in this futile fashion, but it will do no good whatsoever. We cannot force them to eat, and I take the opportunity to state categorically again that there has not been and will not be any force feeding of detainees. It is mischievous to suggest otherwise.
Our main concern throughout has been to ensure that those who have been harming themselves by refusing food should have adequate medical attention. The procedures which have been followed are those adopted by the prison service in similar situations. These involve examination by a doctor after four days—doctors are there daily—after which there will be daily monitoring and 24-hour nursing care. After about eight days, the detainee is examined again by a consultant physician or psychiatrist. Food is made available throughout. There is the option of transfer to a hospital for medical examination or treatment, and this has been done in some cases.
The Government's aim has been and continues to be to handle a difficult problem in a measured and responsible way. Our ability to do so has not been helped by the often hysterical and, at times, aggressive behaviour of the rent-a-mob crowd who frequently gathered outside Campsfield house recently. It has been a motley coalition of the Oxford Trades Union Council, the Socialist Workers party, the Revolutionary Communist party and others of that ilk, including, last Saturday, the hon. Member for Islington, North. I understand that he was seen on television and was amongst a crowd who trespassed on Campsfield house property. Some people in that crowd—I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was included in their number—were hurling lumps of concrete at Group 4 and immigration service staff. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell his constituents about that.
I am glad that the number of people refusing food is falling. I should like to congratulate the staff at Campsfield house, the board of visitors there and all those members of the immigration service who have demonstrated such professionalism and sensitivity in the face of this so-called hunger strike.

Ms Diane Abbott: rose—

Mr. Wardle: I give way to the hon. Lady if her point is brief.

Ms Abbott: Briefly, the Minister has told the House that the fact that people are refusing food will not alter his decision making in any way whatsoever. Is he saying that he is willing to allow people to starve to death in Campsfield house?

Mr. Wardle: No. I am saying that I will not be subjected to blackmail by anyone who says, "I will put you under threat by endangering my health." We will not do so. It is an individual's own choice to refuse food. I bitterly regret that people should take that decision, but it will not alter the merits of their case in any way.
I hope that this short debate has helped shed light on what is an undoubtedly difficult issue. The Government's position is clear: the United Kingdom will continue to honour to the fullest extent its obligations to genuine refugees.
I strongly refute any allegation that our detention policy in any way puts us in breach of the 1951 UN convention on refugees. Nothing in that convention prevents the detention of asylum seekers. Our powers of detention are set in rules which flow from the Immigration Act 1971. It has been on the statute book for more than 20 years.
In the interests of the effective immigration control to which the Government are committed, the exploitation of the asylum process by those who have no conceivable claim to refugee status must be dealt with firmly. The limited use of detention is a necessary part of that process, but detention is used sparingly and administered in a professional and humane way.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of people in Britain of all ethnic origins agree with our firm but fair approach to immigration control. I have no doubt that they also accept that the Government are striking the right balance and discharging their responsibilities sensitively in a difficult and controversial area.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to a demonstration outside Campsfield house last Saturday. It also included people from Churches and many political parties. He also claimed that I was there, and witnessed the throwing of lumps of concrete. I witnessed no throwing of any lumps of concrete. Indeed, I took part in an entirely peaceful demonstration. That is the point I made to the crowd and the television cameras. In view of what he said, perhaps the Minister will at last agree to meet Members of Parliament to discuss what is going on.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The
hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he is making a point of substance, but not a point of order for the Chair.

Child Support Agency

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the problems created by the Child Support Agency.
Earlier this week, when I was called in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Selection to move a motion on the vexed question of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland, I had a much greater audience than I have this morning. Perhaps something I said did not appeal to the hon. Members who were present that day. There is one great satisfaction, however—in no speech that I have ever made in the House have I had so many interruptions as I did on Tuesday, and I am unlikely to have many interruptions this morning.
I make no apology for raising the issue again, although the vexed question of the Child Support Agency has had many airings this year. That demonstrates the misgivings about how the Child Support Agency is working.
When the legislation was introduced, I welcomed it. I believed that strenuous efforts would be made to ensure that absent husbands who were evading their responsibilities would be made to pay something towards their children's maintenance. I have been quickly disillusioned because the Child Support Agency has concentrated on the easy option and gone for ex-husbands who were paying what they could afford. I have now reached the stage when every advice bureau that I hold includes someone complaining about his treatment by the Child Support Agency. At one advice bureau earlier this year, I had to deal with four such cases.
My anger erupted when I received a reply dated 23 March to a letter that I had written on 29 January. My constituent's name was mentioned in the first line, after which there was no mention of his name and no answers to his problem. The letter was merely a statement of the aims of the Child Support Agency. The last line was:
I hope this reply answers most, if not all, of your constituent's concerns".
It did not refer to any of my constituent's concerns. The man's take-home pay is between £150 and £180 a week. Yet he is being asked to pay £178.22 per month. How can he be expected to pay that much out of what most people would agree are modest earnings? The letter that I wrote on 29 January was a waste of time because my constituent's personal circumstances were never referred to in the reply.
I am not complaining only about ministerial replies. The agency takes ages to respond, and its replies do not address the problems put to it. My constituents complain that the CSA will not answer their questions by telephone or letter. It seems only to send out draconian assessments. I am told repeatedly of the difficulties of obtaining any response by telephone—the number rings and rings, but no one seems to be there. One constituent wrote that when he telephones the agency, the number is permanently engaged. When, after persevering, the number answers, the staff are invariably rude and aggressive.
One case involves a couple who were divorced in 1990. They have a 10-year-old son, and the ex-husband agreed to pay £150 a month maintenance for his son and to transfer the family home to his ex-wife. He also pays the capital element of the mortgage. Despite being unemployed for 12 months, he maintained those payments and remained in weekly contact with his son. He now makes debt

repayments also because of a failed business. In October 1993, the Child Support Agency approached the ex-wife and asked for her ex-husband's whereabouts. She was told that if she failed to reveal them it would jeopardise her income support. The ex-husband, despite his loan repayments, was assessed to pay £95.40p per week. He has been drained dry by those payments and only survived by borrowing from his parents. What particularly enrages him is that not one penny of that money has gone to his ex-wife to support his son. On 10 February, I wrote to the CSA's chief executive about that problem. I wrote again on 10 March. As yet, I have received no reply. That falls a long way short of the improved services promised in the citizens charter.
I encountered another difficult case at my last advice bureau, involving a marriage that broke up in 1987. The ex-wife lives in Wales with the two children. No animosity existed between the couple. The ex-wife works full time and receives £4.3p per week family credit. The son is now aged 19 and working, and the daughter is seventeen and a half years old and still in full-time education. The ex-husband was paying £25 per week maintenance for his daughter. That was acceptable to the ex-wife because at the time of the divorce a substantial settlement was agreed under which the ex-husband bought a home for his ex-wife in Wales. However, because she is in receipt of family credit, the law demands that her ex-husband is assessed by the CSA—and his assessment is £201.50p a month. Because there was no animosity between that former couple and the ex-wife feels that her ex-husband has been fair to her, she asked to come off family credit but was told that she could not do so for six months, which is nonsense. In that case, all was amicable before the Child Support Agency intervened.
I will cite another case, of a young man who came to see me last Saturday. His weekly living costs, which comprise repayment of two bank loans and other liabilities and expenses, amount to £242.34p per week, and his housing costs are £112.80p plus council tax of £9.85p—a weekly total of £364.99p. That constituent wrote:
The large number of debts that I have are the result of a failed business venture and from being out of work for eight months last year. During that period of unemployment, I did not claim the cost of the mortgage even though I was eligible to do so.
I originally left my ex-wife in August 1988. At that stage there were no children involved and we had been living in her mother's five-bedroomed house. I had left for a week when I was informed that my ex-wife was pregnant. It was totally unexpected and unplanned on my part. I decided to move back in to help with the pregnancy and the initial few months. I also agreed to buy a house for them to live in.
I left in February 1989. I made regular cash payments during the course of 1989 and 1990, and I also bought her a car at her request so that she would be able to take our son to her mother or to friends, thus allowing her to work. I also paid for a holiday for them both to go to Switzerland. In February 1991 my ex-wife took me to court in order that more maintenance could be obtained. I defended myself, with the judge ruling that the payments I was making were sufficient and that we were to continue in the same manner. I continued to make regular payments through 1991. In January 1992 I applied through my solicitor to standardise my payments through an official court order, to which she did not reply. I then offered her £35 per week, which was rejected. At the beginning of 1992 my business fell apart, with my ex-partner departing for Hong Kong, leaving behind a company in debt. I was then struggling financially and not in a position to make payments to my ex-wife on a regular basis.
Towards the end of 1992, whilst unemployed I once again made an offer of £30 per week to be enforced once I resumed working, to which she did not reply. The offer has been on the


table for the last one and a half years … I understand that my ex-wife has worked since the separation but do not know whether she is at present.
That constituent faces enormous financial difficulties. Yet all that he asks is that
in the light of some of the horror stories you hear in the media … a fair assessment is made taking into account all the facts.
That letter raises the important point of how much notice the Child Support Agency takes of essential expenses. What is the logic of a scheme that takes vast sums of money from the ex-husband that he cannot afford, particularly in cases where husbands have been paying their dues and no dispute exists between the ex-partners? That is a recipe for bitterness.
One hon. Friend told me that when a CSA case arose in an advice bureau held, unusually, on a Friday afternoon, he imagined that the agency's office would be open and telephoned it. He was passed from one office to another, and was eventually put in touch with an office in Scotland, where he received an abusive reply from the man who answered the telephone. That is not good enough.
The CSA should make better use of the telephone when contacting fathers about their assessments. I give as an example of the proper way to behave the disability living allowance telephone unit in Blackpool, which is invariably helpful and deals efficiently with problems put to it. The Child Support Agency should also telephone at sensible times. If people are at work, there is not much use calling them at home during the day. Perhaps calls to ex-husbands, for example, should be made in the evening, when they will be at home.
I hope that the CSA can be made more sensitive, courteous and customer friendly. It must be aware of the ill feeling that it has engendered. There is a suspicion that its principal motive is to save income support money. It is strange that every constituent who has seen me about the agency has been a decent person who always paid maintenance. I have not come across one absent father who dodged maintenance—the sort of individual the legislation was designed to catch.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister replies it will be interesting if he can give an indication of the number of absent fathers who have been brought into the net. The CSA's workings must be closely examined. Taxpayers have borne the burden of missing fathers for many years. Agency arrangements are intended to reduce it, but the speed at which that burden is reduced must be governed by consideration of those who will be affected. I want to hear less about administrative convenience and more about fairness to all the parties involved.
The scheme started as a good idea. It was greeted with approval from both sides of the House and it was passed without a vote against, but it has not worked out as we envisaged. I was distressed when a hard-working father with a decent job told me that if the assessment that he had been given was not reduced he would be better off giving up his job and going on benefit. That surely is something that we must avoid at all costs. It cannot be right, and it was certainly not one of the aims of the legislation. It is essential that we get the balance right in determining how the burden should be distributed between the various parties involved. I believe that it is urgent, because we shall

keep getting those cases at our advice bureaux until action is taken. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can give some indication of what is being done.

12 pm

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on securing this important debate. As ever, he has made a constructive speech, drawing my attention and that of the Government to several issues. He discussed the policies underlying the Child Support Agency, but the main thrust of his speech was about the impact of the new arrangements on a number of his constituents who have exercised their right to mention their worries to him. I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that I will consider the details of those cases and take careful account of the arguments that he has made.
Whatever detailed reservations my hon. Friend may have—I will discuss some of those subjects later—I am sure that he still agrees with the underlying principle of the Child Support Act 1991, which is that it should be concerned with the welfare of the children in such cases. I hope that he will accept that we are all genuinely trying to find our way through some new and difficult issues so as to develop a satisfactory and sustainable system in the long term. As I believe that my hon. Friend will understand, these matters are normally the detailed responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the Under-Secretary of State; due to a minor indisposition, he is unfortunately unable to take part in the debate, but he will read with great care the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale has made.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has explained on several occasions, the principles that underpin the Child Support Agency are right. I believe that it is right that taxpayers' interests should be taken into account. I cannot understand why there should be circumstances in which taxpayers, who may be only marginally, if at all, better off than many absent fathers, should pick up the bill for the maintenance of children who are not their responsibility. We should not lose sight of that principle as we properly take account of the way in which the administrative and other arrangements are developing from the early days of the new policy. I believe that the taxpayers' interests should be taken into account.
A second immensely important part of the policy is that a parent with care—usually, but not always, a woman—should have the assurance of a guaranteed regular income, which she knows will be there regardless of whether she decides to work. It is an important underlying principle of the policy that that should be a part of the system. At present, if a parent with care is on benefit and decides to take work, even at a modest level, her income will reduce the amount of benefit and eventually eliminate the benefit to which she is entitled. That, manifestly, is not the best incentive to encourage lone parents to go out and earn their living, as many of them wish to do. If a woman has a guaranteed—and, in a sense, portable in terms of her circumstances—amount of money coming in week by week or month by month, it is an important underpinning of her standard of living, which she can improve if she wishes to add to her income by working.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale acknowledged, the 1991 Act was passed with the universal


approval of the House, responding to widespread anxiety about the lack of proper financial provision for children whose parents live apart. That in itself is a significant burden for those children and causes considerable anguish to many of the parents. We faced a situation in which nearly 1 million lone parents and their children depended on income support, yet only one quarter of those received any regular maintenance.
The old system of obtaining maintenance through the courts or Department of Social Security offices was obviously failing parents with care, and their children. It was slow, inaccessible, unpredictable, and often led to low and inconsistent settlements. The 1991 Act was designed to halt the significant decline in the payment of maintenance which had occurred during the previous decade as people increasingly realised that it was possible to turn to the state to support children for whom they ought to have accepted responsibility.

Mr. David Nicholson: I hope that my right hon. Friend will answer the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) about the large number of parents who have not paid maintenance or who have paid maintenance very irregularly. Those surely should be the prime target of the Child Support Agency, as the House believed when it passed that legislation without controversy, as my hon. Friend said. There is a widespread suspicion, which I believe is borne out by the evidence, that the Child Support Agency is going for the easy target of people with reasonably high incomes who are already paying maintenance and are therefore easy to locate.

Mr. Scott: I will answer the point made by my hon. Friend when I discuss more detailed points. However, the House should acknowledge that to endorse the principle but to argue, as many Opposition Members tend to, against almost every detail of the implementation of the Child Support Act is not a very constructive way forward. I do not accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) of that, and he properly draws my attention to what I believe to be a misunderstanding, although perhaps the pattern of cases that he receives has led him to that view. No doubt he will take that up with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, as he may have done already, and have that worry removed.
I believe that it was important to move in the direction of the 1991 Act. It is worth reminding the House that this week the National Council for One Parent Families published its report on the first year's work of the Child Support Agency. In introducing the report, Sue Slipman, who is director of the council, did her best—as someone who has not been afraid to be critical of Government policy in a number of different sectors—to put the criticisms of the Child Support Agency into context. It may be useful to read two or three sentences that Miss Slipman included in her report:
What has been forgotten in the uproar is that the Agency was set up to redress a great social wrong. The court system failed to deliver maintenance for children. Before the Child Support Agency, only 30 per cent. of lone parents got any maintenance for their children and, even those few who did, received woefully inadequate sums. As a result of this the growing experience of thousands of children was abandonment by one parent and a life in poverty with the other.
I have no doubt that it was right for us to tackle that situation, and that was a clear indication to us all of the reasons why we needed a Child Support Act.
The basic and unassailable principle behind the new system is that both parents should be responsible for maintaining their children when they can afford to do so. The role of the taxpayer should be limited to those cases in which parents do not have the means to meet that obligation. I believe that that principle has widespread support within the country. However, no one could have been in the Department of Social Security since the introduction of the scheme without recognising that there were genuine concerns about some of the ways in which the new system was working.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: This is an important matter and many people in my constituency have come under undue pressure from the Child Support Agency when we should be chasing absent fathers. Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Labour party, which has been huffing and puffing about the issue for some time, cannot be bothered to have a representative here to listen to this important debate?

Mr. Scott: That is a matter for the judgment of Labour Members. I can understand the temptation to be otherwise engaged on the last day of the Session, and I cannot say that the thought did not cross my own mind as to whether I might be better employed. However, in view of the important points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, I am delighted to be able to play a small part in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale will recognise that we have made recent changes in the operation of the system to meet some of the concerns raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the early months of the Act's operation. Those changes included a substantial increase in the minimum amount of income that an absent parent will keep after meeting his maintenance liability, a reduction in the additional element where there is liability for only one or two children, a reduction in the amount included for the care needs of the children as they grow older and an extension of the arrangements for phasing in the new amounts.
It is early days for us to be judging how those easements, if I may so describe them, are working. As we have greater experience of their impact, I believe that they will represent a significant easing of some of the problems raised by my hon. Friend and by many others in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in recent weeks. They are important reforms and they will have a substantial impact on the amount of maintenance that some absent parents will have to pay. The other side of the coin is that they will have an impact on the amount of maintenance received by some parents with care. No doubt there will be voices from both sides as to where the precise balance should lie. I believe that the changes will be of particular benefit to absent parents on low incomes or with responsibilities for second families.
I understand that the changes have not met all the criticisms of the scheme and it is understandable that some absent parents continue to be dissatisfied. However, I hope that my hon. Friend and other hon Members who have raised points in the debate will give the changes a fair wind to see how they settle down and the extent to which they meet the concerns that their constituents have rightly raised with them.

Mr. David Nicholson: I thought that my right hon. Friend was about to conclude. I hope that he will pursue or


take note and communicate to our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the concerns of which we are all aware about the way in which the Child Support Agency pursues the regulations. My right hon. Friend knows that there is controversy about the regulations laid down by Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale talked about maladministration and I sit on the Select Committee which looks after the parliamentary ombudsman. The ombudsman is being encouraged to take up a number of cases in which maladministration has taken place, quite apart from the argument about the formula and the regulations.

Mr. Scott: I know that there is concern about this matter and it is shared by the chief executive of the Child Support Agency. The agency has devoted considerable resources to training its staff to provide prompt and courteous replies. In the early days there is no doubt that the agency was under considerable administrative pressure. However, the chief executive has deployed considerable resources and effort to seek to overcome those problems. There is now a customer service manager in each agency centre, as well as a national inquiry line for those who need particular help. The agency has recently restated its aim to provide a good service. I am always sorry when any part of what I call the social security family fails to deliver the quality of service to which people are entitled when they turn to it for one reason or another. I hope and believe that in the coming weeks and months we shall see a substantial reduction in the level of dissatisfaction expressed.
Points were made about the priorities that the agency had set itself. It is important to remember that in almost every case that the Child Support Agency will handle this year the parent with care and her children will be on benefit. In contrast, the vast majority of absent parents—I do not pretend that it is 100 per cent.—including many of those who have been in contact with the Government and have condemned the scheme, enjoy a much higher standard of living than the parent with care. It is right that their children, for whom they cannot brush aside their long-standing responsibility, should share in that prosperity.
The Government stand by their commitment to keep the child support scheme under review. The changes that we have made are proof of that commitment and of our determination to move swiftly in making adjustments as the need arises. The fact that we have already acted quickly shows that we intend to honour our pledges. The

administrative shortcomings that have been mentioned are being tackled urgently. There is still too high a level of outstanding correspondence on this issue, but it is being tackled with great energy by those responsible within the agency system.
It has been said that the Child Support Agency has concentrated on the easy option—those already paying. However, at the end of January, 50 per cent. of assessments made were for absent parents who paid nothing at all. We believe that by now, the end of the financial year, that figure will have risen to about 60 per cent. So the agency is getting its priorities right.
I hope that I have dealt with the administrative problems. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the chief executive are anxious to be made aware of any shortcomings in that area and, as I have already said, we are determined to address that as a matter of urgency.
In general, we must allow the changes announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to bed down and we must allow absent parents and parents with care to feel the real effect of them. I believe that when that happens, criticisms of the scheme will begin to abate. I have no doubt that there will continue to be individual cases that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to raise with Ministers, and we shall take those seriously. I took the trouble to look at some of the letters that have been written by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale expressing particular worries and I can assure him that they are being considered with great care. He has had some replies already and I know that others will follow. We shall look at the individual cases responsibly and carefully and see whether there are patterns that need to be addressed in any future changes that we make to the agency.
I reaffirm my belief and the Government's corporate belief that the Child Support Act represents a major step forward in the provision of child maintenance in Britain. Details may still have to be fine-tuned, but a formula-based scheme producing consistent results is a much better guarantee for the future of our children than the inconsistent and unsatisfactory system that we left behind. I repeat my commitment and that of my colleagues in the Department to keep the matter thoroughly under review and to take careful account of any continuing concerns that hon. Members may have.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming:—

Water Bills (South-West)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I have sought a debate because residents in the South West Water area are being hit by a crisis. They are struggling to pay the highest water bills in England and Wales. This year average bills for the region are £340. The charges have more than doubled in the past five years, and they are set to double again.
The reason for that is simple. Less than 3 per cent. of the nation's population—the people of the south-west—are being forced to pay to fund the clean-up of 30 per cent. of the nation's beaches. South West Water predicts that, even without taking account of inflation, in the year 2000 a typical bill will be at least £450 a year. If we allow for inflation, average bills could be £700 a year by 2000. Without help for those on low incomes or living alone, already many people simply cannot afford the bills. Some bills facing pensioners and others on low incomes are already more than £600, yet no help is available.
The Government have repeatedly claimed that they were unaware of the huge problems and of the huge bills that would face South West Water rate payers. More recently, they have claimed that they are doing what they can to tackle the problems. However, ever since privatisation was proposed they have been repeatedly warned that the problem of water charges in the south-west had to be addressed and solved.
In the final stages of the water privatisation debate on 8 December 1988 I said:
I represent an area where people are on low incomes, where some villages do not yet have their own sewerage systems, and where many beaches are polluted. It is they who will have to foot the bill for the improvements that are required".
I warned that both future British Government support and much of the European funding available to the public sector but not to the private sector could be cut off by privatisation, saying
The work is essential to bring our beaches up to the European standard, and I hope that the Minister can assure the people of Cornwall that they will not be expected to meet all the costs of cleaning up the beaches, which are used by citizens of the United Kingdom and Europe, purely because the Government, by their ideological approach, are cutting off the potential to obtain money in other ways".—[Official Report, 8 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 535–36.]
Yet Ministers now say that they did not see the problem
coming. And so far as I recall, with the honourable exception of the then Member of Parliament for Falmouth and Camborne, David Mudd, no hon. Member representing the south-west joined me in opposing the Water Act.
In practice those worries were quickly confirmed. In February 1989 I wrote to the then Secretary of State for the Environment protesting at proposed increases of 13.1 per cent. for South West Water customers. Such was my concern that I then sought and won an Easter Adjournment debate on water and sewerage in the south-west, almost exactly five years ago, on 13 March 1989. I cited then the concerns of local people and again stressed the particular problems of the area and said:
I am concerned that people in Cornwall will have to pay to clear up the mess after privatisation simply because successive Governments"—
this is true of Labour as well as of Conservative Governments—
have failed to invest properly in clean water and proper sewerage systems.

Although only 1.5 million live in the South West Water area, at times there are up to 500,000 tourists supplementing that number. Local people therefore have to pay for the infrastructure to support a heavy influx of visitors. Those visitors are welcome, but I am sure that they expect the beaches to be cleaned up through national intervention and Government money, rather than depending on an over-stretched local private company.
I concluded:
Prices are already rising from the privatisation burden and so falling on local populations. It is time that the Government started to think about the public good rather than private affluence. After all their words about the environment, they could not do better than to start by investing some of the Chancellor's surplus billions in tomorrow's Budget into cleaning up our water. They would be doing so by public demand."—[Official Report, 13 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 67 and 69.]
That was when the Government had money to spare for substantial tax cuts for the wealthy. They did not invest the money to help low-income families.
Ministers still say that they could not see the problem coming. Conservative Members of Parliament across the region had still not woken up to the scale of the problem that was to emerge. A little over a year later, on 16 July 1990, I won a further Adjournment debate on the subject of sewage pollution in Cornwall and the cost of treating it. It followed new Government announcements that they were bringing forward the clean-up programme dramatically, but not increasing the so-called green dowry allowed to water companies at the time of privatisation to meet the then environmental obligations placed on them. That is a crucial point for those Conservatives who have sought to blame Europe for the rising costs.
Not only is it a fact that European standards could be set only with the agreement of British Ministers, who had a right of veto, but the British Government took the decision to increase and accelerate the clean-up. In 1989, the EC had drafted the municipal waste water treatment directive, the precursor to what is now the urban waste water directive. In 1990, before it was agreed, the United Kingdom Government not only brought forward the beach clean-up, but jumped the gun on the municipal waste water treatment proposals by unilaterally adopting them for immediate application.
The Government responded to the fourth report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment published in December 1990. In the introduction to the response the Department stated:
the Government decided to press its own review to a conclusion and not to await the results of the Committee's deliberations … In March the Government announced a major change of policy to require higher standards of treatment before sewage effluent is discharged to sea. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that in future all significant discharges of sewage to sea should first be treated at sewage treatment works: the additional cost associated with this change was put at around £1.5 billion".
That was a United Kingdom decision, not a European one. I do not disagree with the decision—the clean-up is welcome. But it is not possible for the Government to blame others for decisions that they took in advance of European decisions.
The introduction to the response to the Select Committee concluded:
Government policies in this area are in advance of Community environmental policy developments as contained in a draft EC Directive on Municipal Waste Water Treatment which is currently the subject of negotiation. This Directive if adopted will establish uniform minimum standards throughout the European Community. The Government strongly supports this draft directive and is working towards its early adoption.
That confirms that the Government took those decisions in


advance of Europe and were instrumental in persuading Europe to adopt them. It is good that they did so, but the Government cannot now shift the blame on to others.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: No, I shall not give way now as I wish to make progress. I shall give way later if there is time.
Due to my concerns I sought an Adjournment debate on 16 July 1990. Referring to the privatisation of water I said—

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is supposed to be a debate. Is the hon. Gentleman allowed to make wild assertions when he is not even prepared to debate the issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is a matter for the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Taylor: I said that if I had time I would give way later when I have made some progress.
Referring to the privatisation of water, I said:
To show how powerful that problem is, South West Water has been unable to provide me with a figure for the cost of introducing secondary or tertiary treatment for sewage outfalls in Cornwall. It says that the implications of the Secretary of State's announcement are still being assessed, but will the Minister clarify that? By how much, and when, does he foresee charges rising to tackle these problems? Massive investment is needed. For such a policy to be introduced on the back of water ratepayers, pensioners and others who are struggling to pay their bills is unacceptable and the Government must seek an alternative route.
I concluded:
Given all the sources of finance available to Government, they must make available the money to meet these costs.
It did not take long for the extra burden on the already rising water bills to be confirmed, together with the fact that the Government would not in any form help with the costs of the bills, which were set to fall so hard on South West Water rate payers. At the end of the Adjournment debate, the Minister, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), concluded:
It is much better for private companies to raise money from charges to customers. The Government apply that system generally and Cornwall will be no exception."—[Official Report, 16 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 836–42.]
The director general of water services was formally notified of the Government's decision on 14 November 1990 and he had, therefore, to raise the limit on South West Water price rises as the Government had not announced any funding or increase in the green dowry to help meet the costs of the new standard. He announced that South West Water's increase over and above inflation would be allowed, not at 6.5 per cent., as planned after privatisation, but at 11.5 per cent. plus inflation each year. In other words, prices have doubled in the past five years, which has everything to do with the Government's decision. Yet Ministers still say that they did not see the problem coming.
Looking through the relevant press cuttings throughout the period, I cannot find south-west Conservative Members arguing the same point. Perhaps some did. However, it was 1992, especially the general election campaign, that really seems to have woken them up. The Minister should realize

that there is now a strong, cross-party case, echoed not only by Members of Parliament of all parties in the south-west, but by many independent organisations.
The first reaction about which we read was on 6 May 1992. Following substantial gains in the south-west by the Liberal Democrats, the Western Morning News reported:
MPs returning to Westminster after the election campaign have spoken of widespread anger and concern on the doorstep over soaring water bills.

Mr.Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: I shall give way in a minute.

Mr.Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He is not making any progress.

Mr. Taylor: I shall give way in a minute.
The article said that the Members of Parliament believed that it was unfair that local people were having to pay for the clean-up of the region's coastline when it was a national asset enjoyed by millions of holidaymakers every year. A separate article in the West Briton on 21 May reported the then chairperson of the west country Conservative Members committee, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), as saying:
'We all found that this was one of the main issues locally in the General Election … People are right to complain about the escalating charges

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the hon. Gentleman to name Conservative Members and not to be prepared to give way, when he has actually quoted my words, is an abuse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that it is up to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) to decide whether to give way or not. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has been here long enough to know that.

Mr. Taylor: In a further Liberal Democrat-initiated Adjournment debate on 2 June 1992, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who was newly elected, again pressed the issue. He pointed out the low incomes of the area and told the Minister:
There is therefore now a major affordability gap between what is expected of the water charge payers of the south-west and what they can afford…what can the Minister do, post privatisation, to reintroduce national Exchequer support, by way of a green dowry or by any other means, to ensure equalisation between the richer and less well-off parts of the country and to ensure adequate investment in national assets such as the south-west coastline?
Despite echoes of our concerns from Conservative Members, the Minister was dismissive, describing South West Water's rising charges as
good value to a household."—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 798–808.]
Apparently the Government, although not Back-Bench Conservative Members, had still not realised the severity of the problem. When Cornish Conservatives met the then Secretary of State for the Environment on 9 July, the Western Morning News reported the Minister as saying:
There is no question of water users elsewhere subsidising the clean up in the West country, nor of any Treasury help.
In August, the regional office of Ofwat called on the Government to give special cash to the region to ease the problem, but it was turned down straight by the Minister. In November, Ofwat released figures showing that South West Water prices were rising at almost twice the rate as those in other parts of the country and that by the year 2000


bills were likely to be twice as high as those in the affluent south-east. In January 1993, Liberal Democrat Members presented the Prime Minister with our document calling for a fair deal and some 30,000 signatures in support of the campaign to get water prices cut. The Government's position became increasingly confused.
On 4 March, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister wrongly argued that I would find that water prices were
similar in other counties to those in the west country."—[Official Report, 4 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 451.]
The following week however—after an outcry throughout the west country—the Prime Minister gave a more positive response when I questioned him again on 11 March, saying:
I am examining the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment."—[Official Report, 11 March 1994; Vol.220, c.1105.]
The news that the Prime Minister was acknowledging the scale of the problem was extremely welcome, and gained him positive coverage.
On 12 March, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) told the Western Morning News:
Ultimately the Government is the only thing that can come to the rescue of the South West.
It seemed that the Government were taking action. At this point, the hon. Member for Teignbridge may wish to intervene.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman's generosity overwhelms me.
Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a party that would apply qualified majority voting to everything, and then dispense with a national veto, would actually have used the Luxembourg compromise to defeat these directives?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I said that I agreed with them; I also said that the British Government introduced them, not the European Parliament. That is made absolutely clear in the Government's response to the Environment Select Committee's report in December 1990—and, in fact, this occurred before Europe had set those standards.

Mr. Nicholls: My point is that the directives that have inflicted this level of water charges on the south-west were imposed by Europe; they have never been imposed by the House of Commons. It is a disgrace, even by the hon. Gentleman's standards, that he has had the bare-faced, brazen cheek to pretend to the House that the Liberal party—which would give away our ability to veto—would have vetoed in our place.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He is welcome to read the report now, if he cares to do so.
By April, the Prime Minister was writing to Conservative Members to tell them that there were now difficulties in lowering bills. That led the Western Morning News, correctly, to predict catastrophe for the Conservatives in the county elections. Meanwhile, the environment Minister disclaimed any responsibility, arguing in a letter to south-west Liberal Democrat Members on 27 April:
Responsibility for water charges rests with the Director General of Water Services",
denying that the Government were considering a review of water prices and refusing even to attend a meeting to discuss the issue.
That confirmed comments made to the Western Morning News on 23 April, when a Department of the Environment spokesperson—named, unusually; I shall not name that person, as he or she is not present to answer—said:
Why should we give South West Water any money? That was why they were privatised. It is up to them to get the money they need from their customers.
The news report continued:
Mr. Howard's Department said yesterday there was no review, and stressed that curbing water prices was a matter for the industry watchdog, Ofwat.
Within two weeks, however, the Director General of Ofwat, Ian Byatt, was reported in the Western Morning News on 7 May as confirming that
only the Government can stop South west Water bills spiralling".
He said that price limits were
based on environmental obligations laid down by the Government, and he had little room for manoeuvre.
In September, the National Consumer Council published a report entitled "Paying the Price", arguing that water privatisation had produced a bonanza for shareholders but a raw deal for customers. People in the south-west would certainly agree with that. The sense of a Government in complete confusion over the issue was greatly increased in October, when the new water Minister told the Western Morning News:
Ministers had no idea how much the coastal clean up would cost when they signed up".
According to the newspaper,
he agreed that Ministers had to take some blame.
At the beginning of December, Downing street officials briefed Sunday newspapers that the Government had won "important concessions" on relaxing standards to cut the rise in bills, only to have to backtrack. On 14 December, The Independent reported:
The Department of the Environment has admitted that nothing agreed at last week's summit would change the price of water or the rules governing its quality for several years to come 
The Government are apparently still examining ways in which to minimise the clean-up, although that would hurt the tourist industry and would only slow down the increase in bills—and would not even do that for several years. In 1993, the Secretary of State for the Environment wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), saying:
The work is proceeding urgently but it may take some time.
The work now appears to hinge on redefining sensitive coastal waters as less sensitive waters, and therefore pollutable. Under EC rules, that process was due for completion by December 1993 but the Government have not even met that target. The Government have failed to meet the deadline by more than three months. It is rumoured that many projects in some of the most important tourist and environmental sites in the area, including St. Ives and Newquay, could be affected.
The Minister must take the opportunity today to stop making excuses and recounting the history lesson that he gives every time. He must answer a few straight questions: what is happening now about less sensitive waters? Has a list been drawn up? If so, when will it be published and approved, and what EC approval is required?
We have proposed solutions that would cut bills now. First, the Government should replace the outdated water rates system with a system based on council tax charges, which would help people living alone or on low incomes.
Why did the Secretary of State, not only to us at a meeting but afterwards on the record to the media, say that he was looking at that proposal and then deny it later?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, this is in danger of becoming an abuse of the House. He has already taken 20 minutes and the Minister will not have much time to wind up.

Mr. Taylor: I was about to finish my last paragraph. I had understood that the convention is that the time is in the hands of the hon. Member proposing an Adjournment debate, some of whom speak for just one minute and leave the remaining time available to the Minister, and vice versa. I wanted to make some important points. On several Adjournment debates, Ministers have replied to me incorrectly on the history of this matter.
In addition, as to replacing water rates with the council tax system, we believe that the only solution is for national funds to tackle the problem. Otherwise, the problem of 30 per cent. of the clean-up being funded by 3 per cent. of the population cannot be tackled. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued that point. It will not do to blame Europe. It was not Europe but the Government who initiated this problem. And the Minister must answer that charge.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): We have heard a monologue lasting more than 20 minutes from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), without much substance. The rate of increase in water charges in the south-west in recent years has been a cause of concern to the Government. My hon. Friends have been vigorous in their representations to Ministers on that matter, as is clearly evidenced by the presence today of my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson). With other hon. Friends, they have been extremely conscientious in ensuring that Ministers appreciate the concerns of those living in the south-west. I appreciate the fact that some Opposition Members share their concerns.
Water and sewerage charges have been rising across the country as a whole in recent years. That has been necessary to help pay for the multi-billion pound investment programme in the water industry. How often do we hear calls from Opposition Members for more investment? "Spend more money" is practically the rallying call of the Labour and Liberal parties but they complain as soon as more money is invested in the industry. Such complaints are all the more perverse because the previous Labour Government, supported by the Liberals in the Lib-Lab pact, starved the water industry of the money it needed for investment.
When the water authorities were constituted in 1974, their investment stood at some £1.4 billion at current prices. The Labour Government, due to economic mismanagement, simply could not afford to keep up that rate of investment. That Labour Government was marked by rising inflation, economic mismanagement and poor public spending control so that, in December 1976, the Labour Government, propped up by the Liberals, had to

announce overnight a moratorium on the letting of new construction contracts by water authorities. That moratorium signalled public spending cuts for the next two years. South West Water's capital expenditure was actually reduced by 6 per cent. in cash terms. So we do not need lectures from the Liberal Democrat or Labour parties on investing in the water industry.
We have reversed their neglect. To do so, increases in water bills would have been necessary even had the water industry remained in the public sector. But privatisation has allowed water companies access to the financial markets to enable them to obtain part of the funds that they need for their investment programmes, in the form of long-term private sector loans.
Overall, water companies are investing some £3 billion a year. If the companies are to continue to undertake the investment required of them, they must be profitable and able to reinvest those profits in the water infrastructure. We hear many cheap comments from Opposition Members about the water companies' profits. South West Water's last annual report, for the year ended March 1993, states that the company made a pre-tax profit of £92.7 million, but it reported capital spending of £203.7 million in the same period. South West Water's capital investment in the south-west was, therefore, more than double its pre-tax profit.
I acknowledge that in recent years water and sewerage charges have risen more rapidly in the south-west than in other parts of the country, but let us have some sense of proportion. The average South West Water bill for the coming year is £304, which is £40 more than the average bill in the Anglian region and £48 more than the average in Wales. So customers in the south-west are paying on average less than £1 a week more than customers in those regions and the average bill for the coming year will be 83p a day, for water delivered for all purposes and for taking waste water away. That shows that the cost of water in the south-west still represents good value for money.
South West Water's charges have increased more rapidly than those elsewhere because of the company's substantial capital investment programme. It is investing, and plans to continue to invest, between £200 million and £250 million a year, every year until 2000. Much of that spending programme is needed to clean up bathing waters and beaches in the south-west and to comply with the European Community bathing water directive. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made some telling remarks about that directive. People do not want dirty beaches and they should not have them. South West Water is spending millions of pounds to clean up the beaches and no one has ever suggested that schemes to clean up beaches that fail European Community mandatory standards should be deferred.
I am glad that South West Water's "Clean Sweep" coastal sewage treatment programme is well under way. That is good news for local people and for tourism. People welcome those environmental improvements, but there will also be important economic benefits because clean beaches and safe bathing waters are increasingly necessary to attract and retain a thriving tourist industry, on which many jobs in the south-west depend.
Last year, many people in the south-west became concerned about the scale of possible future price increases set out in South West Water's market plan. That plan was published in May last year and set out three possible options for typical household bills in 2000, which is six


years away. The options were: £400, £450 or £500, depending on assumptions made. The hon. Member for Truro suggested that those were actualities, but it is important to make it clear that they are hypothetical bills that are six years away.
South West Water argues that if it is to meet the higher standards that will be legally required by 2000 it will have to levy a typical charge of £450 in that year. It is important for us to recognise that those figures were the company's estimates only. We are not talking about charges this year, next year or in 2000. Charge increases from 1995 onwards will be subject to the new price limits, which the Director General of Water Services, Mr. Byatt, will announce in July, following his first periodic review of all water company prices.
The hon. Member for Truro suggested some ways in which the director general could reduce water bills in the south-west. Essentially the Liberal Democrats want some form of cross-subsidisation. They want other parts of the country to help to meet the costs of sewage treatment in the south-west. To put it bluntly, that would be a form of cross subsidy, but why should there be such cross-subsidisation from customers in other parts of the country? Such subsidies are not consistent with transparency or accountability. Nor is it desirable for water and sewerage services to be paid for out of general taxation rather than charges to consumers.
Doubtless the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in other parts of the country will explain to their voters the Liberal Democrat view that their bills should be increased and that they should pay twice in their bills to subsidise the south-west. I somehow doubt that they will do so because a consistent theme of the Liberal Democrat party is that its members can always be guaranteed to say different things in different parts of the country.
Some people have argued that it is unfair for the south-west, with only 3 per cent. of the nation's population, to have to pay to clean up 30 per cent. of its beaches. But that argument ignores the fact that other parts of the country have particular geographical problems—for instance, East Anglia has a problem with nitrates arid the north-west has a problem with lead. Those problems also require additional investment, which has to be paid for by the customers in those areas.

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Baldry: No, I cannot give way. The director general will announce in July the new annual price limits for South West Water and for other companies, for a ten-year period beginning 1 April 1995.
I was not given a proper opportunity to answer this important debate by the hon. Member for Truro, but I suspect that much of what I have to say I shall say by way of a press release in the south-west—because the hon. Gentleman abused our procedure. The director general and the Government are keen to ensure that future price rises are not a penny higher than necessary. That is the action that we are taking to ensure that we comply properly with the directives, and to ensure that bills in the south-west are kept as low as possible—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Commonwealth

1 pm

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Our former highly respected colleague Sir Richard Luce, who was a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister for many successful years, had a letter published in The Times on 25 October last year. It began as follows:
Having just returned from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus I am absolutely clear that in recent years the British people have forgotten about the Commonwealth. Very few of the younger generation know about it. The British Government gives the impression that it has other preoccupations.
Although the Prime Minister played a full part in that meeting in Cyprus, being there for the five days, I too detected an unfortunate tone of indifference to the Commonwealth creeping into Government pronouncements of the time.
It has been brought to my attention by supporters of the Commonwealth that in the new national curriculum there is, alack, no reference to the Commonwealth—an omission that I find both surprising and wrong, although I appreciate that it may be mentioned under another heading, such as the nature of community.
The Government have failed to stir the imaginations of the younger generation or their interest in the Commonwealth; perhaps a reference in the national curriculum would be the right way forward. If the Minister has a better proposal, I should like to hear it.
When Her Majesty the Queen visited the Commonwealth Institute last May, she remarked:
The institute brings the reality of the individual countries of the Commonwealth alive, and demonstrates the role the Commonwealth can play in the world and among its members.
Unfortunately, as the House will know, in September—owing, I believe, to an excessive Treasury squeeze on the FCO budget, and to a belief that the institute should raise more of its own money—the Government announced, without prior consultation, the decision to stop all future funding of the institute. That represented a massive blow to a popular and important institute.
Writing in The Spectator last October, John Simpson, the perceptive BBC diplomatic correspondent, likened Britain's approach to the Commonwealth these days to that of a father who has left home and is inclined to forget the birthdays of his children. He thought that Labour's interest in it had faded and that
nowadays there is no political support for the Commonwealth at Westminster … For the Right wing of the Conservative party the Commonwealth represented little more than a large extended begging-bowl. There were no imperial echoes in Thatcherism … As for the left and centre of the party, they are concerned only with Europe; for them, there is no alternative.
He took a certain journalistic licence, but there was a kernel of truth in what he wrote.
The purpose of this brief Adjournment debate is to give the Under-Secretary of State, whose lighthearted steps to the golden beaches I have had reason to delay on several previous occasions, the opportunity to tell the House what role he sees for the Commonwealth—it hardly bears repeating that the Commonwealth is not the British Commonwealth—and what role the Government are to play in assisting, guiding and encouraging that future.
I want to spend a few minutes giving him some help with that task. I speak as an enthusiastic and committed supporter of the European Union, who has found in


practice over the years that it is only on the rarest of occasions that the interests of the European Union and the Commonwealth are seriously divorced, let alone contrary.
Let the Government help the British people to reappraise the value of the Commonwealth at the end of this century, not just to the United Kingdom but to the world.
For many years, the Commonwealth was distorted by the vexed issue of South Africa, by tired and tedious references to a colonial past and by a false picture of Britain's role in the modern world. Times have changed; South Africa is about to have a crucial, historic election and I welcome in principle South Africa's return to the Commonwealth fold.
There are powerful advantages for Britain in being a member of this unique collection of 50 nations which together represent 1.5 billion people—a figure even greater than the population of China.
The Commonwealth has some of the fastest growing economies such as Singapore and Malaysia. In mentioning Malaysia, cordial relations should be speedily restored between our Commonwealth countries. The Minister will know that one of his colleagues had the opportunity to congratulate the Malaysian defence forces yesterday on the part that they played with great courage in rescuing the British Army mountaineers.
The Commonwealth has the world's most populist democracy—India—and such key regional players as Australia, Canada and Nigeria and 25 per cent. of United Nations members belong to it.
I visited New York last year with a parliamentary delegation and I was told that the Commonwealth delegates have regular co-ordinating meetings and work well together. I hope there is concerted effort to canvass the support of those delegates for Britain's continued seat on the United Nations Security Council and that it is partly regarded as a Commonwealth seat and not just a European Union seat.
Britain should be able to assist the Commonwealth also through its membership not only of the European Union, which is getting ever larger, but of the G7 countries and because of the important part Britain plays in the deliberations of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank.
I should like to think that Britain remains the Commonwealth psychological centre, helped by the presence here in London of the Commonwealth Secretariat in one of our historic old houses.
At the important Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting—I have the highest possible regard for the role of our royal family on such occasions—Britain had the opportunity to get its point of view across to 49 other members with their cross section of religion, culture and levels of development. But Britain also has the opportunity to gain a special insight into a vast and ever-changing range of world problems, including those concerning health, social issues and the environment.
We should never forget the occasions when Commonwealth countries have been able to help us when we were in trouble. The invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982 was one such moment in recent history.
As a former member of the executive committee of the British section of the Commonwealth Parliamentary

Association, and as a member of the House of Commons who has participated in a number of CPA visits to Commonwealth countries, including Australia and Zambia, I draw attention to the association's splendid work. Commonwealth Members of Parliament are frequently surprised, when they meet in different corners of the world, to learn how much they share in common. In our divided, turbulent and frequently violent world, greater understanding is vital. Its value is unquantifiable.
The CPA can help buttress Commonwealth Parliaments. I recall the encouragement a British delegation tried to give a Speaker in an African country who was under unwarranted pressure—in fact, he was receiving personal threats—from the head of state. After all, this House has a deep historical knowledge of such matters and a good record of putting the high and mighty, insensitive and arrogant in their proper places. New hon. Members do not have the international background that some of their predecessors had—particularly of those who served abroad during the last world war. Also, the last group of Conservative Members of Parliament elected did not include, for the first time in many years, someone from the diplomatic community. They welcome visits to Commonwealth countries.
The secretariat has played a useful part in building stronger democracies. Multi-party democracy is being restored in many Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth is busily engaged putting its own house in order and that effort should be both sustained and acknowledged. Experts of the highest quality have been despatched to help strengthen democratic systems and the rule of law. Governments have been assisted in adopting international best practice in their administrative, judicial and regulatory functions. That work is immensely important and offers hope to future generations.
I will focus on the mounting of 11 election observer missions—a crucial and comparatively new activity involving this House. Such missions are undertaken only at the invitation of the Governments concerned and with the agreement of all major political parties. Independent observers closely examine all aspects of the conduct of the election and decide whether the result reflects the wishes of the people. Recently, elections have been held and observed in Zambia, the Seychelles, Ghana, Kenya and Lesotho.
Time allows only a brief reference to the Harare declaration at the 1991 Commonwealth summit, which takes forward the core Commonwealth beliefs and defines 10 key areas of action. They include the protection and promotion of fundamental political values, equality for women, access to education, promoting sustainable development, protecting the environment, and combatting drug trafficking. Britain is heavily committed to success in them all.
In his letter to The Times in support of the Commonwealth, Sir Richard Luce wrote of
a vast and unique network of contact between the people of the Commonwealth fostered by the provision of scholarships and fellowships and the work of many Commonwealth professional organisations. Recently representatives from over 500 universities in the Commonwealth were able to meet in Swansea.
Britain fully supports such activities and gives £14 million for Commonwealth scholarships—50 per cent. of the total. We also pay 30 per cent. of the secretariat budget, and I am


told that we provide the building free. Like the European Union, the Commonwealth represents a highly successful club. As John Simpson put it, it is
a matter of considerable prestige to be a member. Angola and Mozambique, though former Portugese possessions, are both seeking to join: it represents security for them, and a way back from the utter despair they have endured".
I am greatly encouraged by the number of Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians, as well as British people, that one can now find working in Commonwealth countries in Africa and Asia. The Commonwealth, under its superb Secretary-General, has built up a considerable life of its own, and we have every reason to be proud of it.
I end with some words that Chief Anyaoku used in his report last year to the Heads of Government:
The very existence of the Commonwealth and its history in modern times give grounds for optimism in postulating future possibilities for international co-operation … The Commonwealth has grown out of the deepest and most enriching currents of its times: decolonisation and national freedom, individual liberty and democracy, racial equality, development and the struggle to alleviate poverty, international co-operation and understanding across historical divides, and the quest for world peace.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): My hon. Friend should be congratulated for raising this subject. Members such as he ensure that we discuss matters which we would otherwise perhaps not discuss often enough. I know from his remarks that he has demonstrated that there is no lack of political support for the Commonwealth at Westminster when there are Members such as he in the House.
My hon. Friend mentioned the size of the Commonwealth. It represents a large cross-section of the world, with 1.5 billion people. I think that it is best described as an organisation with a membership which is one quarter of the human race. My hon. Friend mentioned the enormous powerful commercial interests and advantages which accrue to Britain through its membership of the Commonwealth. He mentioned Singapore and Malaysia. It would be right to add India to that list, as another burgeoning economy in the Commonwealth.
As in the case of most international organisations. the role and image of the Commonwealth has changed immeasurably in the past few years. It is, in spite of being one of the oldest and by no means the smallest, probably the least discussed and has the lowest profile. That lowness of profile is one of its strengths. It gets on with its business quietly and effectively behind the scenes. Of course it was an invention of the British, originally designed to make the transition from empire to independence as smooth as possible, but it has some notable advantages nowadays over other institutions. Perhaps its greatest advantage is that it has no fixed, unchangeable objective. Its strength is in its continuing vocation for informal co-operation and contact. It is not an organisation with voting rights or elaborate machinery for dealing procedurally with disagreements between members. All those features are its strengths.
My hon. Friend has expressed some disappointment that the word "Commonwealth" is not mentioned in the national curriculum. He is being a little unfair. If I were to challenge him to read the national curriculum in its entirety, and to list the number of subjects of interest about which he would like schoolchildren to be taught, he would

find that the Commonwealth is not the only subject that is not mentioned in the national curriculum. Frankly, he is asking more of the national curriculum than is possible. I would have thought, like my hon. Friend, that all types of occasions provide opportunities to demonstrate to schoolchildren Britain's membership of the Commonwealth, and the interest in the Commonwealth of so many British subjects whose parents came from Commonwealth countries.
From what I have said, it is obvious that the great challenge facing the Commonwealth now is to consider how its future relevance and its flexible role will develop. I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the present Commonwealth Secretary-General. He has been enormously successful and has built well upon the initiatives of his predecessors. He has done a particularly good job in promoting good government and on election monitoring. That is an area in which the Commonwealth is particularly well qualified and where it has a special contribution to make. I welcome that and see it as giving new life to the Commonwealth.
In 1991 at Harare the Heads of Government opened a new chapter in the Commonwealth's history. The declaration on good governance made at that meeting has since proved its worth. It gave the Commonwealth new unity and purpose in promoting good governance and democracy. It certainly demonstrates the Commonwealth's relevance today.
My hon. Friend touched on a number of the successful elections that have taken place since 1991 which led to democratic government in Commonwealth countries. There have been elections in Zambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho and the Seychelles. They were all undertaken with observer missions, to which my hon. Friend referred, and with Commonwealth assistance. The Secretary-General's good offices were instrumental in bringing to a peaceful end the recent troubles in Lesotho.
Last year's conference in Cyprus was able to concentrate on the practical and constructive work of the Commonwealth. As we know, its members have important shared economic interests and agreement was reached on a range of important subjects.
The Limassol statement on the Uruguay round expressed the Commonwealth's strong collective commitment to a comprehensive, equitable and balanced conclusion on the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Other important areas were covered. Additional measures were called for to reduce the debt burden of developing countries. A strengthening of co-operation in combating the international menace of financial crime, proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, was agreed by members. As a result, a financial crime workshop for Commonwealth small states, which are so vulnerable to sophisticated international financial crime, will be held in Port of Spain in May this year.

Mr. Cyril D.Townsend: While my hon. Friend is talking about smaller states, what is the Government's view on inviting into the Commonwealth countries such as Angola—by no means a small state in terms of size—which have not previously been part of the British empire?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be nice to think that my views would prevail just like that. I can give only a tentative opinion on what I believe is the Government's view. It is a matter for the Commonwealth, not the British


Government. We are an important part of the Commonwealth and we favour the accession of new states, provided that they meet the essential criteria that we expect of a civilised nation and have an interest in being a member of the Commonwealth by reason of geographical location and proximity to other Commonwealth countries. I am happy to say that I think that we would give that proposition a fair wind, but I can give my hon. Friend a more considered reply by letter if he so wishes.
There is no doubt that Britain's entry into the European Community, to which my hon. Friend referred—and our membership now of the European Union—has benefited Commonwealth countries. It has allowed them greater access than ever before to European markets. The Lomé convention offers to 69 developing countries, many of them Commonwealth members, the most favourable trading regime that the European Community gives to any of its trading partners. All industrial goods, except rum, can enter the Community market free from tariffs and quotas, and even rum should soon be exempt.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Commonwealth Institute. The Government emphatically do not want the institute to close. The decision to withdraw our grant in aid after March 1996 was taken with great reluctance against a very tight Foreign Office budget. We want the institute to use the fine building on Kensington High street, provided by the Government, to promote the Commonwealth but to draw after 1996 on non-Government funds to do so. I know that many of the institute's supporters believe that its facilities and programmes could still have a useful function. The Foreign Office is giving the institute a full grant for the current and the next two financial years to enable it to develop a relaunch programme. In addition, separate finance of up to £2.4 million was made available last month to meet redundancy costs. We do not for a moment underestimate the difficulty of the task facing the institute in the next two years but nor do we share the pessimism that has been expressed by a number of colleagues.
I now draw the House's attention to other aspects of our interests in the Commonwealth. Let us consider aid. Because of our shared tradition and common values, it is right that by far the largest part of Britain's official aid programme should go to Commonwealth countries. In recent years, that has amounted to 65 per cent. of the aid that we provide bilaterally. We have always contributed up to 30 per cent. of the secretariat's programme and running costs which, in 1993–94, amount to about £3 million. We have contributed equally towards the Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation since its birth in 1971.
We also provide substantial support each year for scholarships and training awards for students from Commonwealth countries. For instance, the British Chevening scholarships scheme funded 987 scholars and fellows from 49 different countries in 1992–93. A further £600,000 a year goes to the Commonwealth Foundation.
We should not forget the role that Britain has played in promoting the interests of our Commonwealth partners in the international financial institutions and through the European Union. Our aid, like that of other major donors, is closely linked to the drive in recipient countries to secure better government and improved respect for human rights.
My hon. Friend mentioned South Africa, and I wish I had a few more minutes to develop the argument slightly further than he took it. It is enormously important that the Commonwealth is playing such an active role there. For well over a year, the Commonwealth observer mission has been in South Africa, helping to bring an end to the cycle of violence and assisting in the transition to a non-racial democracy. The Commonwealth has helped in the training of mediators and marshals specialising in crowd control and provided assistance in the form of training to the proposed national peacekeeping force. As my hon. Friend knows, plans are currently being finalised to mount, in co-operation with the UN, the Organisation for African Unity and the European Union, the largest ever Commonwealth election observer mission to observe South Africa's first non-racial democratic elections on 27 April next.
I must bring my remarks to a halt in a moment or two. I conclude by saying that Commonwealth members have important shared political and economic interests. Britain's membership of the Commonwealth, as of so many other international organisations, presents and will, I hope, continue to present challenges and opportunities. We regard membership as a strength, bringing different perspectives to bear on mutual problems. Because of its population and geographical diversity, the Commonwealth brings a particular perspective that gives it a valuable and relevant role in the world today.
The living proof is there to see. The Commonwealth is standing the test of time extremely well. We have only to consider all the initiatives that it has produced. In October a number of Members of Parliament, including several of my right hon. Friends and myself, will attend the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association annual conference in Banff. Later in the year we have the Commonwealth Law and Education Ministers meetings. The Commonwealth Year of Sport is to be celebrated in Canada in August, with the Commonwealth Games. And of course, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting will take place in New Zealand in the autumn of next year.

Greenwich Mean Time

Ms Kate Hoey: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a case for the maintenance of Greenwich mean time. As our clocks have just moved forward, this is an especially appropriate time to debate the issue. And as I am discussing Greenwich mean time, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is here beside me.
It would be useful to start with a little description of the history and background. The subject goes back a long way. In 1844 an international convention opted for the world to consist of a number of time belts of one hour per 15 degrees of longitude. That world time order means that midday in the United Kingdom is midnight on the other side of the world. The United Kingdom is in the Greenwich mean time zone.
Greenwich mean time, then, is the system that applies to the United Kingdom and Ireland in winter. British summer time—BST—starts when the clocks go forward one hour, as has happened recently. Central European time is the system for Europe, but not for Greece. Europe remains one hour ahead of the United Kingdom and Ireland for 11 months a year—that is, it is on GMT plus one in winter and GMT plus two in summer. That is sometimes known as single double summer time.
Summer time means the practice of moving clocks forward one hour in summer. That ensures more daylight hours in the evening. In the summer months that works effectively because longer daylight hours mean that there is also light in the mornings. In winter there are fewer daylight hours, and the clocks go back one hour in October to create extra daylight in the mornings. That means that on the shortest day of the year day breaks at about 8.30 or 9 am in the south-east and after 10 am in the north of Scotland. In the most northern parts daylight can begin as late as 10.30 or 10.45 am.
Europe, but not Greece, adopts Greenwich mean time plus one hour—central European time—as its system for most of the year. In summer western Europe moves its clocks forward—in effect, that means Greenwich mean time plus two hours—at the same time as we move to Greenwich mean time plus one hour. That trend is reversed by Europe in September, with a move back to GMT plus one. That creates harmonisation with Great Britain for a month, until we move back to GMT in October. The European Commission is trying to regularise the September-October period. Greece is still different, and is on GMT plus two and GMT plus three respectively.
That says it all. The different time zones are part of nature in a sense: they are part of where we are. James Morgan, in a good and effective article in the Financial Times, said simply:
The pressure to move the clock forward reflects the familiar vanity that reality is ours to change. But the earth turns on its axis, and Belfast is in a different time zone from Belgrade because it is in a different place.
There are many arguments both for and against change, but I believe that there is no argument for change strong enough to do away with the tradition and the advantages of keeping Greenwich mean time.
Today I want to find out whether the Government have made up their mind to come out of the somewhat neutral position, weighing up all the arguments, that they adopted in the document that they issued some time ago. That

contained a little bit of this and a little bit of that, but came out with no strong case against change. I want to see whether the Minister can give me that information today.
One aspect has supposedly formed part of the strongest case for the attempted change: road accidents and safety. The most emotive issue is the safety of children. The current system means that children go to and leave school in daylight except in the very north of Scotland and parts of the northern part of Northern Ireland. Under central European time children would continue to leave school in daylight, but would go to school in darkness.
The House of Commons overwhelmingly rejected an extension of the British standard time experiment in the early 1970s. I am not sure whether the Minister was in the House then—I certainly was not—but a significant factor in that overwhelming rejection was the fact that during the experiment there was an increase in road accidents involving children in the mornings. There were many stories of children and school crossing patrols being killed or injured in the blackness of our English winter mornings between 7.30 and 9 a.m. That was when the practice of children wearing fluorescent armbands first started.
It seems to have been forgotten that mornings are darker than early evenings—as we all know, the darkest hour is the hour before dawn. In early evening, people often have their lights shining out from their house windows for a long time before they close their curtains. In the morning, curtains are often left closed until there is proper daylight. Many shop lights do not come on until about 8.45 am, by which time most children are in school, whereas shop lights shine out brightly late in the day until 5.30 or 6 pm.
On the crucial subject of young children travelling to school in darkness, the only argument that the supporters of central European time can advance is that children are more likely to be driven to school in the mornings than in the evenings. That is all very well if the family happens to have a car and there is a member of the family available to drive the child to school, but that does not happen for the vast majority of our children today and the argument provides no comfort for any family without a car.
The Policy Studies Institute and the daylight extra campaign brought out statistics to show that more than 100 lives could be saved by the change. But during the last experiment with continental time, in 1969–70, the number killed on British roads rose compared with the previous three-year period. Road deaths started to fall soon after Greenwich mean time was restored and have dropped steadily ever since.
Some of the arguments advanced have been economic. There are three sections of workers who would be greatly affected by a change from the status quo. The first sector is agriculture, which employs 253,000 workers, many of whom have to work in the dark in the mornings under great physical stress. The Green Paper produced by the Home Office showed that the National Farmers Union expressed great concern that many of the morning tasks on a farm would have to be delayed by one hour if a change were implemented, incurring great costs in terms of extra lights and energy.
The second sector is the building industry, which employs nearly 820,000 workers, who would suffer in a similar way. The Building Employers Confederation calculated the additional costs incurred by the 1960s experiment and brought the statistics up to 1989 figures to show an extra cost of about £7 billion.
The sector of workers in which I have most interest is that of the postal workers. The postal and express sector employs more than 220,000 workers in the United Kingdom and the Union of Communication Workers strongly opposes the change. For many years, the union has expressed concern about the increased stress caused by postal workers working long periods in darkness. At present, a postal worker in a sorting and delivery office may work a shift that commences as early as 4.30 am. Outdoor deliveries begin as early as 7 am. In the winter months, up to the first three or four hours of a postal worker's shift may be spent without daylight. The period is, of course, much longer in Scotland. Despite that and the hazards it brings, Royal Mail employees are still not classed as night workers.
Postal work is already a difficult job. Increasingly in our inner-city areas, there are no-go areas for postal workers. In London, there are one or two estates where postal workers have not been able to deliver because of physical attacks and threats. Those will become far worse if more work is carried out in darkness. A serious problem for the Union of Communication Workers and its members is the number of postal workers who are attacked by dogs. That is not a laughing matter and anyone who thinks that it is has a strange sense of humour. At present a postal worker can at least see the dog coming to bite him or her, but if we go back to the earlier system, many postal workers will be bitten by dogs and will not even be able to identify the dogs. That is a serious point. Postal workers do not want to spend longer working in the dark.
Once again, we seem to be being pushed by Euro-bureaucrats who want us all to be standardised. The Confederation of British Industry says that its members are so frantically busy working to create economic activity that seven hours a day is not enough and that they need eight hours a day. Japan, which is not exactly a country that is not doing well economically, is seven hours ahead of Europe and 11 hours ahead of the Atlantic coast of North America. We cannot say that Japan's economic prosperity has been damaged by the differences in hours. The fact that there are a number of time zones within North America makes absolutely no difference. This is another absurdity resulting from the European Commission's wanting everything to be standardised. It is change for change's sake. There is no argument for changing the present system which cannot be counteracted by another argument. We should not allow the Eurocrats to change something that is widely accepted here.
I welcome differences. I quite enjoy the fact that when I travel on holiday I have to work out what time it is in the country I am visiting and whether it will be a different time. I do not want to be the same as everyone else in Europe and I do not believe that people in this country want to be the same. There is nothing wrong with diversity. I hope that the Minister can tell us what really lies behind the urge to change and to do away with something that everyone accepts.
We should celebrate the difference. We should celebrate the fact that with Greenwich mean time people do not have to go to work in darkness, as they would if there were a change. We can improve our safety record at whatever time of the morning or afternoon: we do not need to change the time to stop accidents on the road—there are other ways to

do that. Because of the change in our drink-driving laws, the figures for accidents at the end of the day are less serious then they were.
Let us keep what we have. It works perfectly sensibly and there is no real move for change. I hope that the Government will not allow themselves to get into another mess with change for change's sake. A change from Greenwich mean time will arouse huge opposition. Anyone living north of Birmingham will be wholly opposed to any change. I hope that the Minister will give his views strongly today.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Has the hon. Gentleman obtained the permission of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) and the Minister to speak?

Mr. Raynsford: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) on raising this important subject. I thank her and the Minister for making time for me to speak briefly.
My hon. Friend made a strong and persuasive case for retaining Greenwich mean time, and for burying the suggestion that it be abandoned in favour of central European time. This is not the first occasion on which that suggestion has been made. For a period during the late 1960s we experimented with British standard time, but the experiment was abandoned in 1970, when BST—he equivalent of central European time—was rejected on a free vote by a huge majority of 366 to 81. That was a clear and decisive result.
The report of that debate provides some interesting insights. Replying for the Government, the right hon. Reginald Maudling—then Home Secretary—tackled the issue of the safety of children travelling to school. He pointed out that there was no convincing evidence in favour of a change to British standard time for that reason, saying:
It is difficult to produce any convincing figures one way or the other. There has been a surprising and sad increase in the number of child casualties between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. which is not wholly explained and rather bedevils the figures on this point.
He ended by saying:
The figures are not clear enough to base a decision upon. I think that we should assume one way or the other that there is not a large margin either way."—[Official Report, 2 December 1970; Vol. 807, c. 1335.]
That was practical evidence, as opposed to the theories and fanciful arguments advanced now by people who claim that changing to central European time will save children's lives. Such people should realise that the reality is much more complex, and that their case cannot be substantiated.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall pointed out, the simple geographical truth is that we are not on the same longitude as central Europe; we are on the western extremity of Europe, and GMT reflects that. Anyone who is uncertain about that should visit the excellent exhibition at the royal observatory in Greenwich, which clearly shows the remarkable British scientific advances made in the measurement of longitude and time in the 17th and 18th centuries. Those advances led to the establishment of an international framework based on the Greenwich meridian in the 19th century. The logic remains today, and provides a convincing reason for us to avoid the rather dangerous tendency towards Euro-federalism. I note from the record


of the 1970 debate that Baroness Thatcher was one of those who voted against the introduction of British standard time and in favour of retaining GMT—no doubt expressing her well-known views about Euro-federalism.
The case is strong, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will recognise that. I hope that he will also recognise the value of retaining an element of free voting on this important issue. When the House was free to make its own decision 24 years ago, it did so by firmly supporting Greenwich mean time. I hope that it will have the same freedom if the issue is ever put to the vote again.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) on her success in the ballot, and on her choice of subject.
The question of which time zone we should adopt in relation to Greenwich mean time is certainly topical. As the hon. Lady pointed out, only last week the clocks were moved forward to put us on to summer time. According to the hon. Lady's definition and that of her hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), we have abandoned GMT until October.
Let me add to the hon. Lady's summary of what GMT means. For purposes including navigation, cartography and the calculation of time, it has for centuries been useful to employ the concept of the meridian—a circle of constant longitude passing through a given place, and through the north and south poles. As regards time, the significance of the Greenwich meridian is that the system of standard time zones is based on mean time on that meridian. The result is that, almost throughout the world, standard time in any particular country is either that at Greenwich, or differs from that at Greenwich by an integral number of hours, plus or minus.
I trouble the House with that explanation for two reasons. First, it puts beyond doubt that whatever future arrangements the United Kingdom adopts for the calculation of time will not, and by definition cannot, affect the existence and value of Greenwich mean time. The universal benefit of GMT, as the basis for calculating time zones, is immutable. I hope that that will bring some comfort to the hon. Member who has the honour to represent Greenwich, who I am glad intervened briefly in the debate. The hon. Member for Greenwich asked me whether a proposed change could be decided by a free vote in the House. Alas, that is not a matter for me. I am sure, however, that the House would want to reach its own considered conclusion on such a matter.
Secondly, the explanation of GMT helps me to comment on early-day motion 935, entitled "Central European Time Zone", which the hon. Member for Vauxhall has signed. That motion calls on the Government to recognise the natural laws of the solar system by keeping the link with Greenwich mean time. I give her an unequivocal assurance that the Government cannot but recognise the relevant natural laws. Those laws are that the sun rises and sets, and that there are fewer hours of daylight in winter than in summer. Those certainties are unalterable by Government, Parliament, or any other human agency. Furthermore, whatever future arrangements we decide on will be linked indissolubly with Greenwich time.
As the hon. Lady said, at present the United Kingdom's time in winter is Greenwich mean time, so that in the

summer, from March to October, our time is GMT plus one hour. For shorthand, I shall refer to those arrangements as the status quo. When, in our 1989 Green Paper, we initiated consultation and consideration of the country's future arrangements for time, a majority of respondents favoured, instead of the status quo, a different linkage with GMT—single double summer time, otherwise known as central European time or CET. That sets time in winter at GMT plus one hour, and summer time at GMT plus two hours. The effect would be later sunrises—and so later sunsets—in both summer and winter.
While the responses overall favoured moving to that arrangement, the consultation also revealed strong feelings in favour of the status quo, particularly in Scotland but also in sectors of opinion elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is among the major reasons why assessment of where the balance of national advantage lies is less than easy. As well as the hon. Lady, many other hon. Members have signed EDM 935, opposing a move to CET. Against that, numerous other Members have signed EDM 389, which strongly advocates such a move.
The main objections to moving to CET that we have received fall into two categories. First, there is concern about the prospect of darker winter mornings leading to general inconvenience and, in particular, fears of more difficult working environments, and of greater risks of accident for those, such as farmers, construction workers, postmen—to whom the hon. Lady referred—and milkmen, who start work outdoors early. Secondly, there is concern that any adverse consequences of moving to CET would have a disproportionate impact in the north, particularly in Scotland.
CET would certainly entail winter morning inconvenience, although that could be overcome in some sectors by changes in working hours. Examples of industry organisations nevertheless so far opposed to CET include the National Farmers Union, and construction industry representatives. The first see difficulties in darker mornings for both arable and livestock farmers. I shall not go into detail on those now, as time has become short. The construction industry focuses on the iciness as well as the darkness of morning work and the fear of entailing greater costs for artificial lighting or time lost waiting for the day to warm up and the possible greater risk of industrial accidents. We take those concerns seriously. It should also be noted, however, that no national increase in the number of accidents in the construction industry was notified under the Factories Acts during the experiment with British standard time between 1968 and 1970, when winter time was GMT plus one hour.
There are fears that the move to CET could be of disproportionate disadvantage to the north of the country and perhaps to Scotland in particular. There are two associated concerns. The first is the lateness of winter sunrise, as mornings would generally stay darker for longer in Scotland, even though the very late sunrises would be confined to the far north. I have some figures, but it is probably better that I set out the more general arguments as I have only a limited time. The second concern is that darker winter mornings in the north could lead to more traffic accidents. The hon. Member for Vauxhall stressed that aspect.
A further consideration, which carries substantial weight, is that people are fully accustomed to the status quo. That is a powerful argument. The advocates of CET need to show not only that its advantages could outweigh


its disadvantages, but that they would do so to such an extent that the change, which would affect every person in the country, would be well worth the making.
As I have summarised the case for the status quo, I must also report the main arguments that we have received for moving to CET. Those are that substantial net reductions in road traffic casualties are forecast, that there would be some reduction in the fear of crime, that opportunities for leisure pursuits would increase, that our tourism industries would be boosted, and that there would be benefits to business, travel and communications from sharing the same time arrangements as those adopted in most other western European countries.
Of those arguments, the one relating to road traffic casualties is the most clearly supported by statistical evidence, despite what the hon. Member for Vauxhall said. The Transport Research Laboratory, which did the calculations and analysed the statistics after the debate to which the hon. Member for Greenwich referred, estimates that a move to CET would achieve a United Kingdom-wide net total reduction in road traffic casualties of 140 deaths, 520 serious injuries and 2,000 other casualties each year. The TRL's estimate is that, of those totals, the annual reduction in Scotland would be by 12 deaths, 47 serious injuries and 270 other casualties. Proportionately, that would be a greater reduction than that forecast for elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
I should also explain what is stated in early-day motion 935. Whatever the value of the statistics—I understand that the hon. Member for Greenwich would like to argue, but so would many other people and they are not my statistics—they are not merely 20 years old, but take into account fresh circumstances, such as the welcome reduction in evening drink driving. TRL has taken relevant changed circumstances into account when revising the estimates derived from the 1968–70 experiment with BST.
The reduction in drink driving is not relevant, because the main period of drink driving is in the late evening—roughly 10 pm to 3 am—which is well outside the time that CET would affect.
As to fear of crime, I saw the hon. Member for Vauxhall shaking her head, but successive British crime survey reports show that fear of going out in the dark is especially common among women and the elderly, with fewer journeys made when darkness has fallen. Advocates of CET point out, therefore, that the extension of daylight hours into the late afternoons and early evenings would appreciably enhance the quality of life during the winter afternoons for the people in that category. The survey found that three in five female pensioners feel "very unsafe" walking alone in the dark and that, even among young men, one in 10 feels unsafe at that time. Although CET would mean later sunrises, fear of darkness in the mornings is not nearly so great.
The response to our initial consultation paper and subsequent representations shows that one of the greatest perceived advantages of CET is the enhanced opportunity that it would provide for people to engage in leisure pursuits. For instance, the Sports Council and the Central Council for Physical Recreation support CET for outdoor sports, in which the hon. Lady takes a particular interest.

Ms Hoey: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: I have only one minute left. Not only must I fail to reply to whatever point the hon. Lady was about to make, but I must leave out a great many other things that I wanted to say. I want to take this chance to make it abundantly clear that the start and end dates, if they are decided, will be decided by this House, by the interest of this country. The Community is not putting pressure on us—at least, not in respect of what time we choose, although in respect of the end and start dates of the change, yes it is. I agree with the hon. Lady that the decision either to move to CET or to remain as we are needs to be made soon so that the uncertainty about what is to happen in the next two or three years can be dispelled.

Racism and Anti-semitism

2 pm

Mr. John Marshall: When I applied for this debate I expected it to be the hors d'oeuvres before the debate on racial harassment during the debates on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in April. Fate has now decreed that it be sandwiched between our debate last Monday and the debates that we shall have on our return.
The United Kingdom has a long history of tolerance. We welcomed the Huguenot refugees when they were the victims of religious persecution centuries ago. We welcomed the victims of pogroms at the turn of the century. In the 1930s, children came here on the Kindertransport from Germany to secure asylum. More recently, the Ugandan Asians, victims of Idi Amin, came here in the 1970s. That tolerance has been doubly blessed: it blessed those who received it and it blessed the United Kingdom, because those who came here made a major contribution to the life of our country.
That fine history is now threatened by a small minority. I am sure that everyone in the House was appalled by the election victory of the British National party in Millwall, but it was part of a wider worrying picture. In the past two years or so, there have been 14 racial murders, and there were about 9,000 reported racial attacks last year.
Anti-semitism is on the increase; there has been hate mail and anti-semitic leafleting in the universities. Our universities should be centres of tolerance and liberalism, but they are being used by a small group of Muslim fundamentalists who are waging a vicious campaign of anti-semitism. The HUT—no connection with UHT—has been condemned by most British Muslims and banned in many Arab countries, yet it is active on 50 campuses in this country.
The Hizb-ut-Tahir is an extremist organisation which has described Yasser Arafat as "filth". It has produced a leaflet, circulating in London university, which contains the following sentence:
The last hour will not come until Muslims fight Jews and kill them … Peace with Israel, India and Serbia is a crime.
University College London cancelled a meeting due to be addressed by the HUT.
Those who perpetrate such offensive filth should be prosecuted. The Crown Prosecution Service, however, said about the leaflet:
The Crown Prosecution Service have carefully considered the contents of this leaflet but have concluded it is not of such a nature that a prosecution for an offence contrary to part III of the Public Order Act 1986 could be brought in relation to its distribution. In the circumstances, the CPS have not passed the material on to the police.
If a leaflet calling for the murder of a religious group is not the sort of literature that the CPS believes should lead to a prosecution, one wonders how offensive a leaflet has to be—how nasty and filthy—before it warrants prosecution by the CPS.
We are faced with a small minority of mindless, militant Muslims who threaten violence on campuses; they are homophobic, anti-semitic and anti-Hindu. They claim the right to free speech, but they misuse that right to preach a doctrine of hate and violence. Surely those who persecute others should themselves be prosecuted by the forces of law and order. The HUT is a manifestation of poison and evil. It speaks for very few, but the doctrines it puts forward carry a threat which may incite others to violence.
Equally menacing is the flood of hate mail in north London. Many of my constituents, as I have reminded the House, were refugees from the Nazis. They fought for Britain in the last war and now, in the evening of their lives, they are experiencing a chilling echo of the 1930s. Why should they be disturbed by this evil hatred today?
We see cemeteries daubed with anti-semitic slogans and Nazi emblems. Surely the dead should have the right to rest in peace. Schools and synagogues need security staff to ensure that they will not be the victims of anti-semitic thugs. It is surely obscene that, in the last few years of the 20th century, places of worship should need to be protected and people should feel at risk when they are worshipping in a religious house.
Those attacks come from deranged, evil individuals who should be prosecuted. There are many who receive this hate mail and most of them will dismiss it as the product of a bitter, twisted mind. Others will obviously and rightly be concerned and ask themselves what will happen next. There is a danger that such anti-semitic literature will encourage others to commit acts of violence. That is why the Board of Deputies of British Jews is rightly concerned, and the Tabachnik report addresses the problem.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will be able to give the House some positive news about the Government's intentions on this matter. It is true that when we had the debate on Monday we still did not have the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman of that Committee, is here this afternoon and I hope that he will say a few words and tell the House when he expects to produce that report. I also hope that, when the House returns on 12 April, my right hon. Friend will tell the House that the Government will consider moving amendments on this issue either before the Bill leaves the House or when it reaches another place.
Racism and anti-semitism are like cancer; they have to be eradicated at their source or they multiply their malignant growth. The first issue we have to examine is how we can more adequately enforce the law. I believe that we need to give the police additional powers. As I said on Monday night, if someone makes a racist speech at Hyde Park corner on a Sunday, he can be arrested but those delivering leaflets cannot be arrested. The police would welcome additional powers to prohibit or impose conditions on meetings and processions on the ground that racial hatred may be incited.

Mr. Hartley Booth: Is my hon. Friend giving support and credence to the proposals in my Racial Hatred and Violence Bill?

Mr. Marshall: Yes. I am giving support to part of my hon. Friend's Bill.
Under sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, the police can impose conditions on, or prohibit, a march if it will cause serious public disorder or disruption to the life of the community and the Home Secretary can prohibit the march if the conditions are not an effective weapon. The police would like those conditions widened to include racial hatred. That would get rid of some of the unfortunate marches in London, which cause disruption, fear and anger to many people.
Additional resources are also required. Disorder in society is mushrooming and the police should be told that combating it has high priority and that additional resources


will be devoted to that purpose. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would clarify the role of the Attorney-General in bringing prosecutions. How many land on his desk and how many are determined at a lower level in the prosecution system?
In defining new offences such as those outlined in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), the test must be whether it will be easier or more difficult to bring successful prosecutions. If we raise the hurdles before the prosecuting authorities, that would not be helpful.
I shall conclude, so that my two learned colleagues can contribute, by emphasising the need for speed. In the words of Lady Macbeth:—
If it were done when 'tis done, then twere well—
It were done quickly".
My right hon. Friend the Minister may be tempted to say, "Let's wait until the next Criminal Justice Bill." We want quicker progress. Amendments should be made to the present Bill in the House or in the other place. The need is pressing and there must be immediate action.

Mr. Greville Janner: I thank the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for initiating this debate and for sparing me a little of his time. Above all, I thank him for being a champion of human rights causes—especially those affecting the Jewish community. We are all most grateful to him.
All six Conservative Members in the Chamber—most of whom are good personal friends of mine—are involved in the same fight against racism of all kinds and share extreme distaste for anti-semitism in all its aspects. The House is a very decent place. We have great disagreements, but on human rights issues we work together. As a Jewish leader, I thank those Conservative Members for all their work in that cause.
I greatly appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Hendon, South about the Tabachnik report. I do not know whether the particular suggestions made by Eldred Tabachnik are acceptable, but I would like the Minister to say whether he shares the view that change is essential.
We only have to look at the Italian elections to see what happens when people are not sufficiently aware of the past—the heirs to Mussolini's fascism start moving towards power; at events in what was the Soviet Union to smell the stench of anti-semitism in our nostrils; at what is happening in parts of Germany and the way in which the German Government and people are trying, often without success, to contest it, to know that the dangers of racism are not past.
I trust that the Minister will give us hope that in this country the dangers that confront not only Jewish people but all minority races are recognised by the Government, and that they will undertake to change the law on anti-racism to ensure that it will be enforceable and enforced.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on being a great champion, as a Christian, of Jewish causes and a great source of pride and admiration for his many

thousands of constituents—not only for those who are Jewish but for adherents to all kinds of other religions, who believe that this country is a haven of tolerance, decency and religious understanding.
There can be no doubt that racism, and the fear of racism, is growing in our society. Whether it is a result of the concentration in urban centres of ethnic minority groups or whether it is because the spread of fascism in Europe will inevitably have some effects here in Britain—there are already signs that that is happening—I do not know, but racism, unlike other kinds of "ism", is a cancer eating away at the fabric of free and decent societies. We realise how far that cancer can grow when we watch a film such as "Schindler's List" and witness how deep it went in a society which at the time was considered to be one of the most tolerant and reasonable in the world.
The Home Affairs Select Committee has tabled some amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. It has suggested that we should have an offence of racial attack, that there should be some strengthening of the Public Order Act 1986 to take account of racial harassment, and that more can be done to strengthen the courts' powers in connection with hate mail.
It is time for the defences against racism to be strengthened and it is time for a positive effort to be made by the House to lessen the fear of racism among ethnic minorities of whatever colour or creed.
I hope that the Government will view those amendments, which have been tabled by a majority of the Home Affairs Select Committee, with understanding and support. If they do, and if they show that they are able to take the challenge of the increase in racism and the fear of racism and strengthen our defences, I have no doubt that the ethnic minorities will take continued heart that multiracial Britain is, indeed, a haven of tolerance, understanding and decency. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South for giving me the opportunity to say those few words.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for raising this subject. These important issues need extensive and thorough debate—rather more time, alas, than the 14 minutes that remain to me. At least the House has spent some time in recent weeks discussing new or amended legislation to tackle racial violence or harassment, and will do so again when we return after Easter.
Legislation is a very important tool, but it is not the only one, and it is vital that we do not lose sight of the wider picture of which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South reminded us on a number of occasions, as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). Racism, discrimination and anti-semitism go much further than mere questions of legislation; legislation is crucial but legislation alone cannot provide the full solution to the problems of discrimination and prejudice. That is why the Government's policies seek to tackle the fundamental problems that lead to discrimination and disadvantage.
The Government's condemnation of all types of racial violence, harassment and discrimination is unequivocal. Such action harms not only individuals but the wider community. The trust and understanding built up over


years between communities can so rapidly be eroded by the climate of fear and anxiety that follows racial attacks or the distribution of nasty racist literature.The Government are firmly committed to the elimination of all types of discrimination and to the promotion of equality of opportunity.
Our commitment to eliminating the barriers to full participation is expressed in two ways. First, it is expressed in legislation. Britain has the most stringent and comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in Europe. Those laws make racial discrimination in employment and in the provision of goods and services unlawful. The statutory organisation, the Commission for Racial Equality, promotes the law and offers advice and guidance on the way to avoid discrimination. The second leg of our policy manifests itself in the many programmes and initiatives that have been introduced to regenerate the economy, especially in the inner cities, the benefit of which is especially felt by ethnic minority communities.
Action to tackle disadvantage and to encourage economic recovery are only two elements of our policies that are actively helping to promote good race relations. We recognise the need to work together to build a truly open society in which all individuals, whatever their race, can feel safe, secure and able to contribute as well as to enjoy that society's benefits.
In stressing safety and security, I must deal with an issue which I know deeply concerns the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, as it does the ethnic minority communities. There is not a decent person in the country who does not share with me and the House horror and outrage that young men like Quaddus Ali and Mukhtar Ahmed can be set upon by thugs and left critically ill. I take this opportunity to offer my sympathy to the victims and their families; I am sure that I speak for the whole House in doing so.
Investigation of racial crimes is a priority for the police and, where there are convictions, the sentences imposed by the courts can be and are exemplary. The appalling cases of the murders of Saddik Dada and Mohammed Sarwar and the taxi driver, Fiaz Mirza, show that to be so.
There has rightly been a great deal of discussion in recent months about how the law can contribute towards tackling racism and anti-semitism. The inquiry of the Select Committee on Home Affairs is close to reporting on this matter and it will be interesting to see its arguments and thoughts as well as some of its amendments, without any of the arguments and thoughts, down on the Order Paper.
We have been investigating the working of the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to racially motivated crimes. I have listened closely to the points my hon Friend the Member for Hendon, South has made today about the law as well as those he made on Monday. As he knows, there are a number of new clauses—rather more than there were last night—to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill currently before the House. That debate is not yet concluded, and will resume after Easter. These are important matters and they deserve a full response from the Government, which I will give when the House returns. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand, therefore, if I do not reply in detail to the points made today about those new clauses, instead confining myself to some general remarks.
When we have the arguments and views of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, as well as our own, I believe that its investigations will be seen to have underscored the

complexities involved in considering changes to the law in this area. We need to be satisfied that any change would make the law more effective, promote good race relations and not have undesirable implications for the wider application of the criminal law. With those considerations in mind, I do not believe that it would be sensible to embark on legislative reform on the scale proposed recently by my hon Friend, the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), at least certainly not before the outcome of the investigations has been fully exposed to public view. I want to assure my hon Friend that we will look sympathetically at any changes, in law or practice, that can give us more effective ways of dealing with racially motivated crimes.
One point that I want to make clear is that the Government do not believe that a specific offence, whether it be of racial harassment or racial violence, would be the right way forward. The need to prove racial motivation would make it much harder to achieve convictions and would undermine the declaratory or deterrent purpose behind such legislation. Although it would be temporarily encouraging to the ethnic minority communities, I believe that in the longer run it would undermine good race relations generally.
My hon. Friend specifically mentioned anti-semitism, as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). That is only one facet of a more widespread racism, but the Jewish community does have specific concerns. Like the Jewish community, I am concerned about the continuing publication and distribution of racist and, in particular, anti-semitic literature, and I do not underestimate the hurt and apprehension felt by the Jewish community.
It has long been the position in this country that people have the right to express whatever views they may have, no matter how repugnant they may be, provided that they do so within the law. If it can be shown that racist literature is intended or likely to stir up racial hatred, the authors can be prosecuted under the Public Order Act and face a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 can also catch anti-semitic literature if it is sent to someone whom the author expected and intended to be distressed by receiving such material. It seems to me that most of the literature—if that is the right word for it—that I have seen complained of falls foul of the law as it is. I am interested in the particular example cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, which had been produced by an extremist Muslim organisation and which was circulating in universities.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lloyd: I would rather not because I have only six minutes left. However, my hon. and learned Friend presses me, so I shall give way if he will be brief.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: If most of the literature falls foul of the law, why are there not more prosecutions?

Mr. Lloyd: I wish I had not given way to my hon. and learned Friend because I would have come to that point.

Mr. Janner: It is a good question.

Mr. Lloyd: It is a good question and one that requires close attention. The obvious problem is finding who has produced the literature and having sufficient evidence to prove it so that those responsible can be convicted. As I said, the law covers broadly the type of literature—if that is the right word for it—that is complained of but the problem is identifying the culprits.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West, who has taken a long and determined interest in these issues, intervened earlier to urge specifically the adoption of the recommendations of the Tabachnik report. Again, I hope that he will understand that I cannot go fully into those issues now. I will, however, make several remarks germane to the report.
We always need to strike a balance between freedom of speech, which includes the right to promulgate views and arguments that are silly and unpleasant, and the duty of the state to protect its citizens from abuse and publications that are conducive to strife and disorder. I am not yet convinced that the Public Order Act has that balance wrong, but I am acutely aware of the concern about the number of prosecutions since the Public Order Act came into force in 1987—a point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton—and of the suspicion that there is a lack of interest in pursuing such offences. I can assure the House that the police and the prosecuting authorities take these matters very seriously.
We are examining the current law—to see whether it is not working as intended—as part of a wider study of the effectiveness of the law relating to racially motivated crimes. The police encounter great difficulty in identifying those responsible for producing and distributing the dreadful material that we all, unfortunately, see from time to time. We are paying particular attention to whether the police have the powers that they need to investigate effectively the sources of such material. The main issue is not the nature of the material itself and whether the existing law covers it; the major problem lies in identifying the offender so that a successful prosecution can be brought.
Of course, it is for the Attorney-General to decide whether to consent to prosecutions for Public Order Act offences involving material designed to incite racial strife. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend gives very

careful consideration to all these cases referred to him by the Crown Prosecution Service. I believe that 19 cases have been referred to him, and I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton is worried that it is such a small number. Of those 19 cases, 14 have gone ahead with the Attorney-General's approval and five have not, the main reason being the unsatisfactory nature or inadequacy of the evidence. These are matters for the Attorney-General rather than me but I know that he is deeply concerned about them.
I regret that I do not have time to deal with all the matters raised, especially the organisations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South referred. However, I stress that what we have achieved over the past 30 years or so is a tribute to the basic values of decency and tolerance to be found in the great majority of our people, whatever their background. We want to build on that foundation. Good race relations are about legislation but not only about legislation to penalise those who transgress; they are also about promotion, advice, information, health and education. Measures that build confidence and trust and create mutual understanding are needed to go alongside the law—to underpin it and improve relation-ships that have gone wrong before the law needs to be called in because an offence has been committed.
I am greatly encouraged by the discussions that I have had with many representatives of ethnic minority organisations. There are real problems, but there is also a great deal of good will in those communities upon which to build.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South on bringing the arguments before us. They are essential. I hope that I have given him some encouragement, and I believe that we shall find that changes in the law can be useful. However, my hon. Friend is shrewd and practical, and has said that there is no benefit to the Jewish community or to any other ethnic minority in our simply rewriting the law in a way that extends neither its scope nor its effectiveness. I am determined to avoid doing that.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Ministerial Accountability

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Since I was elected to the House nearly two years ago, one of my great pleasures has been showing the palace to more than 1,000 visitors. When I welcome them here I say that this is a royal palace, but it is also the people's palace. I take my visitors to the Chapel in the Crypt and show them the plaque placed there by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in memory of the great suffragette Emily Wilding Davison. I also take them through Westminster hall and rehearse for them all the great events that occurred there.
Then we go to St. Stephen's hall, where I invite my visitors to pause, and I explain how Charles I stormed into the House of Commons to arrest five Members of Parliament. I paraphrase the words that Speaker Lenthall uttered on that very spot, and I pull myself up to my full height, as no doubt Speaker Lenthall did when he looked the king straight in the eye and said something like, "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak except with the permission of this House." I tell the schoolchildren who come to visit me that what Speaker Lenthall was really doing, in the polite way that Speakers have, was telling the king to go and take a long running jump off Southend pier.
I then tell my visitors that Speaker Lenthall was also asserting the rights and independence of the House of Commons against the Executive, and I add that in my view those rights and that independence need renewing, or reasserting.
Today the Executive is not in reality Her Majesty the Queen, although things are done in her name. The Executive today consists of the people who sit on the Treasury Bench—the Government. Over recent years—the characteristic is not exclusive to the present Administration—there has been a growth of arrogance and of the arbitrary use, and perhaps misuse, of power by Government. That needs to be curtailed. The rights and the capacity of this place to be independent of the Executive, and to be able to probe them, scrutinise them and call them to account, need to be reasserted.
A kicking-off point for a renewal of the capacity of Members of Parliament to question Ministers and to call them to account would be for the House of Commons to repatriate to itself the control of parliamentary business and of the legislative programme. I am told that it is a relatively recent development that the Leader of the House, as a member of the Government, says what we shall do and what business we shall consider in this place.
It is a long overdue reform that the business of this place should be controlled by a Select Committee of senior Back-Bench Members of Parliament, with whom the Government would negotiate about parliamentary slots for their legislation. Indeed, it would be within the power of those Back Benchers to say that there was not parliamentary time for particular forms of legislation. That would be an extremely healthy step towards reasserting our rights and our capacity to control the Executive and to call Ministers to account.
We have a problem with the volume of legislation. Too much of it goes through the House. No hon. Member can

say with hand on heart that legislation is properly scrutinised here. As a consequence it is poor, deficient in many areas and contains errors. That is partly the fault of the 651 of us who form the House, but it is also due to the poor management of the legislative process by individual Ministers. We recently had an example of that when the Railways Act 1993 was found to be deficient. An amending piece of legislation had to be railroaded through the House just over a week ago to deal with British Transport police. That shows that we are not doing our job properly, and that Ministers are not advocating, and framing and piloting legislation through the House properly.
I want the House to exploit the provisions in our Standing Orders to ensure that primary legislation, including politically contentious legislation, is examined in special Standing Committees, as happens in most other legislatures around the world, such as the United States and other Westminster-style Parliaments as well. In those Parliaments, Bills do not simply pass through the traditional Standing Committees. Through the use of a Select Committee element, there is proper probing and examination of the content and intent of the Bills. Our Standing Orders include that provision, but it rarely triggered, except in relatively uncontentious legislation. That is a pity, and we should start to use that provision, particularly in relation to Government legislation.
I wholeheartedly defend our two-Chamber principle. I do not defend the way in which the other place is constituted, but its role and function are extremely important. It reviews legislation that has been badly handled by the House of Commons, and acts as a check and balance against the excessive use of power—what Lord Hailsham referred to as parliamentary dictatorship. If a party wins a general election and the arithmetic is correct, it can form a Government and railroad legislation through the House of Commons regardless of its merits and whether it has been fully examined. The second Chamber helps to prevent that, but I want to see a democratically elected chamber.
It seems nonsense that we cannot examine or scrutinise senior and important Ministers from another place in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I wish that Members of the House of Lords who are Ministers could be questioned in the House of Commons, and vice versa. If the architect of a piece of legislation is a Member of the other House, it would make sense for him to pilot the legislation through this House.
I should also consider it appropriate for Ministers who are Members of the House of Commons to pilot legislation, which they have framed and which bears their fingerprints, through the upper House. That practice would not be a major departure. It exists in other legislatures around the world, and it makes sense. I am not bothered about the rubrics—I would allow Ministers from the House of Lords to come and speak from the Dispatch Box. But, if people want to be fussy, parliamentary carpenters could be asked to erect another Dispatch Box at the Bar of the House. The appropriate Minister should be in the House to be probed by the elected representatives, regardless of whether he or she is a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
Lord Young of Graffham was, for a long time during the Thatcher Administration, a senior Minister holding a number of important portfolios. I was not a Member of Parliament then, but I would have been frustrated at not


being able to get at him and subject him to parliamentary scrutiny. Baroness Chalker currently holds an important portfolio as Minister for Overseas Development, but we have no access to her here.
Perhaps the biggest example of the anomalous and undemocratic nature of the system, and the fact that elected Members of the House of Commons cannot directly probe all Ministers, is that of the office of the Lord Chancellor, and it is time for that office to go. It is a contradiction of the concept of the separation of powers. The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Government and the Cabinet—he is a politician. He is head of the judiciary—he is a judge. He is also the presiding officer of a Chamber of Parliament. That is nonsense. It is a schizophrenic role which needs to go because it is bad in principle and it frustrates parliamentary democracy and accountability.
I was concerned to read on the front page of the Observer on 6 March a report headed, "Judges outraged by Mackay". I have no intention of using this debate to go into the principle of that matter other than to say that I have tabled parliamentary questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who sits in this place. I was unable to get at the Lord Chancellor. There is a need for the matter to be scrutinised because there are allegations that the Lord Chancellor has abused his power as head of the judiciary by mixing it with his role as a member of the Government—as a politician. We need an opportunity to call that Minister to account and I regret that that cannot be done face to face.
My comments about schizophrenic roles are also true of the role of Attorney-General. The present incumbent has clearly, on a number of occasions over the past two years, been substantially embarrassed and confused—I am being courteous and probably generous to him—by his mixed role as a politician and somebody who, as in other jurisdictions, should act independently of the Executive. It is time that the Attorney-General was not a Minister and fulfilled a role separate from the Executive so that he or she could be seen and understood to be acting impartially. That is not the situation at present—certainly not with the present incumbent.
One vehicle for scrutiny in the House, which I exploit in all its capacity, is the tabling of parliamentary questions to Ministers for written answer; long may that be so. However, it is a limited form of scrutiny which troubles me a great deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) has tried to table many questions relating to Matrix-Churchill and to issues that are the subject of the Scott inquiry. Under the rules of this House, those questions are blocked. There is a rule that if a Minister—in this case, the Prime Minister—says early on in a parliamentary reply that he will answer no further questions, no more questions on the issue can be accepted by the Table Office. I have no complaints about the Table Office or about Madam Speaker. I am saying that we need to review that rule because it is not conducive to parliamentary democracy or to a capacity to probe and scrutinise. I can understand my hon. Friend's frustration. Such a rule is wholly unacceptable in a modern parliamentary democracy.
One must ask about what happens during a parliamentary recess. Before some in this place go on about—

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: As the hon. Gentleman is an Essex man and as we are last in to bat today, I give way to him.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if, for example, one tries to table a question asking about the size of food mountains, one does not get a reply because the Government have blocked it? That is despite £250 million being spent every week on dumping and destroying food surpluses.

Mr. Mackinlay: I totally accept what the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said. Although he and I may differ on the principle of European membership, he is right to be jealous of his duty to scrutinise the matter. I am wholly with him.
The hon. Gentleman and I are frustrated in not being able to table questions during the long parliamentary recesses. It has to be said, of course, that this Parliament sits more than any other modern legislature; it sits more than the House of Representatives in the United States and more than the National Assembly in France. However, it is crazy that we do not have parliamentary Sessions more evenly distributed throughout the year. In the summer, the hon. Member for Southend, East and I are unable to table questions that we would table if the House were sitting. Some important issues can come up during the recess. Governments have rumbled the idea that the summer recess is the time to take action. Parliamentary journalists are away on their holidays and the House is not sitting. We must watch that. I want a more evenly distributed parliamentary programme and the capacity to table parliamentary questions for written answer during any recess.
Select Committee investigations do not take place during recesses either, and I think that that needs to be changed. Reforming the parliamentary timetable would help. I admire Lord St John of Fawsley, who, as a Conservative Minister, introduced the first significant parliamentary innovation promoting scrutiny of Ministers in the House for many a decade.
I am proud of this place, but Parliament is geared to probing the role of 19th-century Governments, who were not charged with taking us into the European Community, maintaining employment levels, promoting a health service and providing education, other than elementary education. I could go on. We have not amended our processes to meet the big expansion in the role of Government—apart from establishing Select Committees, the development of which still has a long way to go.
I believe that evidence should be given to Select Committees under oath. To lie to a House of Commons Select Committee should be to commit an act of perjury, and Select Committee procedures should be beefed up accordingly. I used to get up in the middle of the night to watch the Watergate hearings on television: I was very disappointed when the series ended. It was exciting to see Senator Sam Ervin and his colleagues probing the United States Executive. He did a very good job. That function—the function currently performed by Lord Justice Scott—should be performed by a Select Committee in the House along the same lines as those of the congressional Watergate hearings.
In that way, we could have avoided the unacceptable behaviour of some who have given evidence to Lord


Justice Scott—most recently Lord Trefgarne, a former Minister, who implied that the matter was of no great consequence. He said that it was "neither necessary nor desirable" to advise Parliament about changes in policy. If such matters were dealt with by a reformed parliamentary legislature, the Executive's deficiencies and abuses would be exposed; indeed, some of them might not have come about with the beefed-up parliamentary scrutiny to which I have alluded.
Ministers have enormous power in appointing the heads of quangos and agencies. I do not wish to trespass into political differences over numbers and so forth, but enormous patronage is available to Ministers. A House of Commons Select Committee needs to be able to scrutinise the nominations of agency heads, and to probe those nominations before they are confirmed by the House of Commons. It is perfectly correct for such people to be nominated by a Minister, but for them to be confirmed by Parliament would be a useful departure, which would enable us to scrutinise the role and decisions of Ministers in that important regard.
I promised the Minister that I would give him adequate time to respond, but I want to mention another matter, which I am sure will interest the hon. Member for Southend, East. I refer to the royal prerogative. I know that it will concern the hon. Gentleman that under our jurisdiction important treaties—including the Maastricht treaty—are approved by royal prerogative. The lengthy legislation that we had to examine last year on Maastricht was merely consequential, arising from the treaty approved under the royal prerogative.
Many other matters dealt with by royal prerogative would, in other countries, be subject to Acts of Parliament and scrutiny by the legislature, including the banning of trade unions at GCHQ and questions such as jury vetting and telephone tapping. The issue of the royal prerogative urgently needs examination by people who are proud to defend the concept of democracy, and wish to promote it in this land.

Sir Teddy Taylor: God save the Queen.

Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, refers to the monarch. Let me make it clear that I do not blame the monarch in any way. I am reminded of the words of Walter Bagehot, who described our constitution as having two parts. If I remember correctly, he said that the sovereign was the dignified part—indeed, the present sovereign and head of state is a most dignified lady, who commands universal respect—and the efficient part was the Administration, the law makers. That is where my views depart from those of Walter Bagehot. I note that he is dead, however, so perhaps he should be expunged from all the textbooks on British government and constitution as his views are now irrelevant and out of date. The Government and the Executive are inefficient and arrogant with power, but we cannot adequately bring them to account because of the arcane practices and rubrics of this place. It is time that those practices changed.
It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am working towards the election of a Labour Government at the next general election. Although I think that my party will win, I want more. I want it to deserve to win and its emergence to be welcomed by the people of this country. I hope that, between now and the general election, my party will see that the issues that I

have canvassed this afternoon are highly attractive to a vast group of people who may have no natural affinity with or support for the Opposition but who want change and the promotion of democracy in our land.
Those who wish to take this country into the next millennium must consider how things are run and how the Executive is scrutinised. They must draw up a programme that will be attractive to people concerned with those issues. I hope that my speech will herald some consideration both by my party and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman as I have already done so in a previous debate today, but the benefit of these debates is that the Minister is given an opportunity to reply to the points that are made. The Minister now has only nine minutes in which to reply, so the hon. Gentleman should finish his speech.

Mr. Mackinlay: I have finished my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, I took the precaution of discussing the timing of the debate with the Minister and his office and we agreed that I could trespass until 2.50 pm.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): Thank you for your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) warned my office about the length of his speech.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock on obtaining this Adjournment debate—irrespective of his timing—and choosing the subject of ministerial accountability to Parliament. The questions that have been raised are both important and wide ranging and it is right that the House should have an opportunity to debate them.
May I say a little about ministerial accountability itself? The concept of ministerial accountability to Parliament is, of course, fundamental to our unwritten constitution, but the hon. Gentleman has suggested that this and other Governments have somehow eroded that concept. That is definitely not the case.
Accountability is a word that must be used carefully. The word "accountable" is now used interchangeably with "responsible" and "answerable". While the words often overlap in ordinary language, the key importance of accountability is that it implies a two-way relationship. Ministers are accountable to the House for the policies, action and resources of their Departments. In our system of parliamentary democracy, the Government are formed by the party that has a majority in the House, and remain in office while they retain the confidence of the House.
Government Ministers are, therefore, accountable to Parliament and, ultimately, to the electorate for their policies and the actions of their Departments. Giving an account of what is done by their Departments is part of that concept of accountability. Civil servants can assist Ministers in giving an account to Parliament but, unlike Ministers, they are not directly accountable to Parliament. Parliament cannot give them directions or dismiss or discipline them. Ministers are accountable to Parliament; civil servants are accountable to Ministers.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Thurrock suggest that Parliament should have greater powers to check and scrutinise the Executive. He will not be surprised to hear me say that the view from my position is


slightly different. It is clear to me that Parliament has the powers to call the Executive to account and I welcome that. It is right that it should be the case.
The hon. Gentleman was particularly concerned about the powers of Select Committees and their role in scrutinising the work of Ministers and Departments. The Government are always ready to consider seriously proposals for change, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the working of the Select Committee system was looked at in great detail by the Procedure Committee in 1990. It recommended some minor changes to the way in which the system operates—most of which the Government were happy to support and which have since been implemented.
The main conclusion of the Procedure Committee's report, which I commend to the House, was that the system of departmental Select Committees—as established, as the hon. Gentleman said, by Lord St. John of Fawsley—was working well and
had achieved considerable success in working across a wide range of issues".
The Procedure Committee studied the powers of Select Committees as they are set out under Standing Order No.130 and concluded:
It will be clear from the tenor of our remarks that we do not detect any signs that the freedom of action of departmentally related Select Committees has been in any material way hampered or constrained by the wording of their existing remits.
Secondly, on their powers, the Procedure Committee said:
There is little or no demand from Select Committees for any increase in their powers to send for persons, papers and records … We do not therefore consider that new or additional powers are necessary.
While we are always ready to consider suggestions, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has caused me to come to a different conclusion from that of the Procedure Committee.
One role for Select Committees that the hon. Gentleman suggested was that of involvement in public appointments and in the process of appointing chief executives of next steps agencies and other senior officers in Whitehall. I can understand the motives of those who make such a proposal, but I am not convinced that it would be right to adopt such an approach, since it would cut across ministerial accountability to Parliament.
Although public appointments are the responsibility of Ministers, they can be challenged at any time in the House, through parliamentary questions, Adjournment debates such as this, or even motions of confidence. For example, the hon. Gentleman may recall that a public appointment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was raised in points of order not long ago.
I would also be concerned that parliamentary scrutiny before public appointments were made would risk politicisation of the appointments procedure and might discourage people from putting their names forward for consideration—certainly those people who are outside the normal political circuit, who are very important to the efficient running of Government.
A direct interest on the part of Parliament in the appointment of chief executives might be taken to imply that those civil servants would have a direct link to Parliament. That would be a constitutional innovation of great magnitude and I am not sure that it could be accommodated in isolation. I would, therefore, find it difficult to agree with the implications of his proposals.
En passant, the hon. Gentleman mentioned a fixed-term Parliament. That idea has been raised before, but there are some practical problems. It is rare indeed for a Parliament to have no possibility of either extension or early dissolution. I have studied other Parliaments in the European Union and I understand that virtually all of them can be either dissolved early or extended if necessary.
If we had a fixed-term Parliament and a Government lost a vote of confidence, presumably the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we would extend the life of that Parliament in spite of the vote. I do not imagine that he would support such a state of affairs. On the other side of the coin, the notion of a Government sitting for a full, fixed-term Parliament does not sit well with the continual calls from the Opposition for the Government to go to the country. I am pleased that, whenever we have given in to those calls in the past decade and a half, it has invariably been an unpleasant surprise for his party.
The hon. Member for Thurrock suggested that the recess disadvantaged the Opposition and scrutiny of the Executive. He was concerned that he should be able to table questions and use other parliamentary tools during the recess. I cannot see a regiment of supporters for the hon. Gentleman's case. Indeed, he is exercising an interesting example of ministerial accountability by having me here at 3 o'clock on Maundy Thursday. Those matters are for the House itself. The Opposition have a role in them and I am sure that his arguments will be noted. However, I can assure him that it is not my impression that scrutiny of ministerial actions disappears during the recess. Certainly Ministers—perhaps sadly—do not disappear.
Finally, as I am in my last minute, I shall deal with the royal prerogative and with its most obvious and—in some senses—its most controversial use, that of treaties, a matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) supported him. The House was much occupied with that question last year and I do not want to spend any of my last few seconds by going over old ground but, as last year's events made crystal clear, the House has an important role in relation to the exercise of the royal prerogative on treaties.
The treaty of Maastricht was considered in vast detail by the House—in more detail than by any other legislature in Europe. That demonstrates perfectly well that the scrutiny of—

The motion having been made at half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three o'clock till Tuesday 12 April, pursuant to the Resolution [17 March].